Supreme Court Decision Disheartening

[americanson]

I'm of course referring to the latest decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to block executions of those 17 and under. A 5-4 decision would determine probably the worst decision on Capital Punishment since it was temporarily abolished in 1972 in Furman vs Georgia. As I'm sure you're aware let's say X muders Y when X is 17 and is caught two years later when X is 19. Because of this latest decision the prosecution cannot bring death penalty charges against X.

Now I love my country but what the hell is this? Justice Anthony Kennedy said he took into account "international opinion" on the U.S. death penalty in deciding his determining ballot. Who gives a damn for int'l opinion Anthony? Int'l opinion also said Reagan shouldn't have gone after the expansionist Soviet Union. Do you think Reagan made the right decision? Uh yeah.

Needless top say a 17 year old is in fact old and mature enough to understand MURDER is wrong and illegal. Oh but someone in yesterday's Boston Globe (letter) said that it was the right decision because 17 year olds can't vote or join the armed forces (without parental permission) Who cares? There are 17 year olds more mature than 30 year olds and some more well reckless. I'm personally very upset and feel for the families who won't see justice for their loved ones. Life in prison just as bad? Really? Then why are there so many appeals to save the scumbags life and REDUCE it from life to death? This is the most appalling decision since Illinois Governor George Ryan (A Republican To Boot) reversed the sentences of all of state inmates on his last day of office. Mrpolarbear.....

P.S. Furman vs Georgia was "retroactive." meaning that those whose sentences were overturned in 1972 reamined overturned five years later.

[Drunken Master]

*bangs head repeatedly on desk*

[yychobbyist]

for once, i agree with americanson...... i just think would be really unfair for the US govn't to kill all those children in iraq but not kill any american children!!!!

But what do you really think ruChuck?

[Asterix]

americanson,

As rational argument on why the death penalty doesn't work is obviously lost on you (even putting aside any discussion of moral issues), I'll leave you with this. Since 2000, in addition to the US, only 4 other countries have knowingly allowed executions of juveniles. China, The Republic of Congo, Iran and Pakistan. Not exactly poster boy countries for human rights. You are known by the company you keep.

[yychobbyist]

americanson,

As rational argument on why the death penalty doesn't work is obviously lost on you (even putting aside any discussion of moral issues), I'll leave you with this. Since 2000, in addition to the US, only 4 other countries have knowingly allowed executions of juveniles. China, The Republic of Congo, Iran and Pakistan. Not exactly poster boy countries for human rights. You are known by the company you keep.

What? Saddam didn't butcher children?

[someone]

*bangs head repeatedly on desk*
I don't know why, I actually find some of these posts humorous (although this does not even come close to a couple of his other posts in terms of pure ridiculous humor)

[yychobbyist]

Don't you think it's kind of ironic that a guy who refers to Germany as "Germa-Nazi" supports putting children to death?

[Asterix]

Oh, and since 1990 you could also add Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, though Yemen apparently had an epiphany and outlawed it a few years ago. Don't worry americanson. The ruling only passed by a 5 to 4 vote. Since George W will almost certainly have at least one Supreme Court appointment in the next four years, and as he hails from the state leading in capital punishment, I'm sure you'll get another whack at juvenile executions.

[lenharper]

I would like to comment on the recent supreme court decision viz capital punishment but I know from your previous postings that you get really upset when us socialist Canadians comment on American internal domestic issues so I'll just let you have your little moment.

Sorry you can't kill kids. shame about the retards too. Least you still got the black folks.... I know it's not much but it's something.

[Drunken Master]

Sorry you can't kill kids. shame about the retards too. Least you still got the black folks.... I know it's not much but it's something.

High-o! :D

[Asterix]

Not really true, bbk. Iran executed someone who committed a crime when he was a 17 year old boy as recently as this last January. Also there are other countries that still execute juvenile offenders as I listed earlier in the thread.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/index.do

[Pete Graves]

Those are our leftist friends for us: life for the mass murderer and death to the unborn child.

[papasmerf]

Those are our leftist friends for us: life for the mass murderer and death to the unborn child.

On that subject I was informed yesterday, by a supervisor in a large hospital's medical records department, that every aborted fetus has a death certificate issued. Even the doctors agree it is a child not a tissue sample.

[americanson]

Cheap Shot Len. Are you saying blacks have no rights in the U.S.? Comment all you want on this latest decision I fully welcome opposing viewpoints. Oh and Canada has really treated the natives well eh?

[mrpolarbear]

I'm of course referring to the latest decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to block executions of those 17 and under. A 5-4 decision would determine probably the worst decision on Capital Punishment since it was temporarily abolished in 1972 in Furman vs Georgia. As I'm sure you're aware let's say X muders Y when X is 17 and is caught two years later when X is 19. Because of this latest decision the prosecution cannot bring death penalty charges against X.

Now I love my country but what the hell is this? Justice Anthony Kennedy said he took into account "international opinion" on the U.S. death penalty in deciding his determining ballot. Who gives a damn for int'l opinion Anthony? Int'l opinion also said Reagan shouldn't have gone after the expansionist Soviet Union. Do you think Reagan made the right decision? Uh yeah.

Needless top say a 17 year old is in fact old and mature enough to understand MURDER is wrong and illegal. Oh but someone in yesterday's Boston Globe (letter) said that it was the right decision because 17 year olds can't vote or join the armed forces (without parental permission) Who cares? There are 17 year olds more mature than 30 year olds and some more well reckless. I'm personally very upset and feel for the families who won't see justice for their loved ones. Life in prison just as bad? Really? Then why are there so many appeals to save the scumbags life and REDUCE it from life to death? This is the most appalling decision since Illinois Governor George Ryan (A Republican To Boot) reversed the sentences of all of state inmates on his last day of office. Mrpolarbear.....

P.S. Furman vs Georgia was "retroactive." meaning that those whose sentences were overturned in 1972 reamined overturned five years later. Finally The Supreme Court got some balls and made a right decision for once. If you lived in Illinois "Americanson" you would understand why George Ryan did what he did. :D

[americanson]

I "understand" his reasons for the decsion mrpolarbear: Apparently law students and their prof found proof of a dozen innocents on death row. Scary and sad stuff and I hope they can recover. Having said that don't you think it's a LOT extreme to just reverse the penalties of ALL death row inmates? That reminds me of the anti-gun lobbyists who feel that all guns should be abolished and then violent crime would follow. Yeah Right.

[yychobbyist]

On that subject I was informed yesterday, by a supervisor in a large hospital's medical records department, that every aborted fetus has a death certificate issued. Even the doctors agree it is a child not a tissue sample.

Does this happen in more than just one hospital or in more than one city or state? Is this truly a decision of doctors or of the lawyers employed by hospital or, alternatively, is it a politically mandated decision?

[papasmerf]

Does this happen in more than just one hospital or in more than one city or state? Is this truly a decision of doctors or of the lawyers employed by hospital or, alternatively, is it a politically mandated decision?


According to my friend it is the LAW in NYS . I never asked if it was nationwide.

[Asterix]

I "understand" his reasons for the decsion mrpolarbear: Apparently law students and their prof found proof of a dozen innocents on death row. Scary and sad stuff and I hope they can recover.

Yes it is. Since 1976 in the US, for every eight inmates executed on death row there has been one exonerated (950 executed to 114 exonerated). And by exonerated I am referring to those freed due to new evidence showing their innocence, not because of legal technicality. Some had been waiting over two decades, and it would be naive to think others haven't been executed before new information came to light. I've posted a few links showing why the death penalty simply doesn't work. Putting aside any moral arguments or emotional opinions, can you show me any credible evidence that it does, and is anything more than just exacting revenge?

[yychobbyist]

Do you have some link or something to those numbers Asterix? If true, those numbers are pretty damned scary.

[Asterix]

Do you have some link or something to those numbers Asterix? If true, those numbers are pretty damned scary.

Three links actually. I could probably supply more if you like.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/listbyyear.do
http://ncadp.org/fact_sheet4.html
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=17609

[Asterix]

Another link showing the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. Interesting to look at how much higher the homicide rate is generally for states with the death penalty, as opposed to states without it. Also I believe Canada's homicide rate has dropped quite a bit since you abolished the death penalty. Stats can be found on one of the sites I've listed.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES

[yychobbyist]

Three links actually. I could probably supply more if you like.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/listbyyear.do
http://ncadp.org/fact_sheet4.html
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=17609

No, thanks. That's great.

[Peeping Tom]

More like the worst decision ever - upon reading the details I was shocked. This really came from the left bench, I'm wondering if crack was free that day. Do these idiots even remember what a law is? Really, one might expect this nonsense from a Canadian court, but from SCOTUS?

Anyways, it'll be appointment time soon and it couldn't come too soon. Let the Dems filibuster, better yet weld the doors to the Senate shut until they finish - they aint stopping the nominations regardless.




I'm of course referring to the latest decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to block executions of those 17 and under. A 5-4 decision would determine probably the worst decision on Capital Punishment since it was temporarily abolished in 1972 in Furman vs Georgia.

[Peeping Tom]

Got any respectable links? In a similar manner, I could quote Hitler on the dangers of race mixing, but it wouldn't exactly amount to much.




Three links actually. I could probably supply more if you like.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/listbyyear.do
http://ncadp.org/fact_sheet4.html
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=17609

[Peeping Tom]

It is not a deterrent in any form - the job of the CJS is to punish upon conviction, not deter.




Another link showing the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent

[Peeping Tom]

Show me more - last time I checked application of the DP resulted in a dead scumbag - exactly as designed, 100 % effective all the time.




I've posted a few links showing why the death penalty simply doesn't work.

[WoodPeckr]

...... Oh and Canada has really treated the natives well eh?

Are you suggesting that the USA somehow treated their natives better !?!?!?!?

Did you forget those Indian Wars of past in the US or does that 'fine treatment' of US natives not apply!?!?!?

Did Canada have any Indian Wars waged on the same level as the US back then?.....:rolleyes:

[Peeping Tom]

And just how is the DP, in its current form, cruel or unusual? I understand the current favorite is the spike (lethal injection), heck they even get high one last time - more than they deserve. Not like boiling in oil, a practice that should be revived in certain cases as the original reasons for not doing so are no longer valid considerations in contemporary society.




It was one of the arguments against and was to show cruel and unusual punishment.

[Peeping Tom]

War is hell, sucks to be the loser. Besides, it takes two sides to play and the better one won.




Did you forget those Indian Wars of past in the US or does that 'fine treatment' of US natives not apply!?!?!?

[someone]

I'm really beginning to wonder if PT is for real or if he is just somebody trying to make Americans look bad by pretending to be one. It is really hard to believe that some people here are for real.

[Peeping Tom]

someone, how about countering my points instead? I wrote into those posts hoping to spark a few threads.

Alternately, I'll take your approach and merely label you - you're an idiot, mkay?

[someone]

someone, how about countering my points instead? I wrote into those posts hoping to spark a few threads.

Alternately, I'll take your approach and merely label you - you're an idiot, mkay?
And you’re the comic relief. As such, you do serve a useful function.

[Peeping Tom]

It is rather comic watching an asshat unable to counter the points.

[Asterix]

And what points would those be? Other than ranting about wanting to bring back boiling people in oil, I don't see you've made any at all. All I did was supply some statistics on how the death penalty is applied is the US. If you feel the information I gave was wrong, why don't you put your energies toward disproving me. The numbers can be easily checked if you want to try, and I'll look forward to what you come up with. Or don't.

[Peeping Tom]

Asterix, I didn't make the claims - you did. I'm asking if there are more objective sources in the case of wrongful conviction. As for the rest, pretty self evident stuff. BTW, the boiling in oil part is dead serious - pretty lame reply.

[someone]

BTW, the boiling in oil part is dead serious - pretty lame reply.
Need I say more about comic relief?

[yychobbyist]

Got any respectable links? In a similar manner, I could quote Hitler on the dangers of race mixing, but it wouldn't exactly amount to much.

You are in serious need of help - of what kind I'm not exactly sure. Yeah, Amnesty International is as objective as Hitler. Right.

And boiling in oil? With a view like that you should have been an admirer of Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin and men of that kind.

[slowandeasy]

americanson,

Since 2000, in addition to the US, only 4 other countries have knowingly allowed executions of juveniles. China, The Republic of Congo, Iran and Pakistan. Not exactly poster boy countries for human rights. You are known by the company you keep.

Your naivety aside... the above quote means shit...

I really don't know how I feel about capital punishment..... but I would say that there would be an 80% chance that I would try to personally remove someone who sexually assaulted or murdered my child...

[Asterix]

Peeping Tom,

Not sure why I'm bothering, but it's late and I'm bored. Here's a link to CNN from 1999 about exonerated death row inmates. Sorry, I couldn't find anything from Fox News.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/15/death.row/

[Asterix]

Your naivety aside... the above quote means shit...

I really don't know how I feel about capital punishment..... but I would say that there would be an 80% chance that I would try to personally remove someone who sexually assaulted or murdered my child...

Explain please. I was merely listing the countries that still executed those who had committed crimes while under 18. What does your post have to do with this?

[someone]

Not like boiling in oil, a practice that should be revived in certain cases as the original reasons for not doing so are no longer valid considerations in contemporary society.
After having a few drinks I was really hoping to find another entertaining post by you, However, maybe you need a straight man. Please explain what has changed regarding boiling in oil. Why are the original reasons for not doing so no longer valid? By the way, what were the original reasons? (I can barely stop laughing long enough to type this).

[Peeping Tom]

The norms for capital punishment cases are far greater than for lesser crimes. The innocent card gets alot of air time here. To that end another poster has listed a citation which I'll check on later. I'm having a hard time buying it however - it would imply that for lesser offences most guilty people are actually innocent, and I know where that one goes ... Mistakes might happen and if it is a concern it shouldn't be a DP case to start with - reserve those for irrefutable cases, i.e., a DNA based conviction


...except when it is someone who is innocent, then the DP is just a little to effective.

Its called State's Rights, not exactly something I'm in agreement with concerning the CJS - but that's the topic for another thread.


If you could explain to me how you rationalize the fact that the same evidence in one state will get life w/o parole and the DP in another state, I would appreciate that.

Someone's always playing the race card LOL. Maybe rich white people commit heinous crimes in reduced numbers ... I would like to give some stats breaking down crime per capita by race, unfortunately they aren't available. But, some off the record numbers leaked by PD's suggest 20:1.


If you could explain in a non-racist way how poor people of color are more likely to get the DP than rich white people, I would appreciate that.

In an ideal, perfect world the State wouldn't screw up, corruption and incompetence wouldn't exist and neither would crime. My take: reserve DP for DNA, confessions and smoking gun cases - where there exists no possibilty of doubt.


If you could explain how the state could fix the situtation when the state makes a boo-boo, or some over zealous prosecutor hides evidence, I would appreciate that.

These issues are irrelevant to this statement. If the State can't administer DP then it can't enforce a parking ticket - it is the inherent mandate of the State to deliver punishment and the inherent right of the citizen to demand as such of the State.


Until you can address these issues, I fail to see how anyone can support capital punishment.

[Asterix]

Someone's always playing the race card LOL. Maybe rich white people commit heinous crimes in reduced numbers ... I would like to give some stats breaking down crime per capita by race, unfortunately they aren't available. But, some off the record numbers leaked by PD's suggest 20:1.




You don't try to look too hard do you? This took me all of 30 seconds to find. While you're correct that hispanics and blacks have a higher prison population as opposed to whites, I'm not sure where your number of 20:1 per capita comes from. Leaked by PD's? You really are too funny.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

[K Douglas]

I am conservative but I do oppose the death penalty. It doesn't act as a deterrent, it costs the legal system way too much money in appeals, there are innocent people who have been convicted and are now sitting on death row and I believe that everyone has a useful purpose on earth, even if they are evil and incarcerated for life (use them for hard labour, lab rat testing or something). I also don't believe that the state has the right to kill someone, which also supports my belief that abortion is wrong (unless its extreme circumstances).

[oldjones]

Those are our leftist friends for us: life for the mass murderer and death to the unborn child. What, there are no right-wingers having abortions? You are welcome to you point of view, but using an oxymoron like "death to the unborn" makes your statement of them sound ridiculous.

[oldjones]

Are you suggesting that the USA somehow treated their natives better !?!?!?!?

Did you forget those Indian Wars of past in the US or does that 'fine treatment' of US natives not apply!?!?!?

Did Canada have any Indian Wars waged on the same level as the US back then?.....:rolleyes: In fact the Mounties processed refugees from the US genocide who sought refuge here—Sitting Bull was the most well known.

[marcus aurellis]

Perhaps the best quote i've read on this matter is by former Virginia Attorney General Mary Sue Terry. When a death row inmate petitioned the Appeals Court for a new trial claiming new evidence, Ms Terry stated "evidence of innocence is irrelevant".

So if the search for innocence is irrelevant, what is?

Imagine being that poor guy, fighting for your life and the State dosen't care if you actually did the crime?

Forget the fact that the death penalty is racially, socially and econimically biased, that it dosen't act as a deterent, that it is not cost effective and so flawed that over 100 men have been exonerated in the past 30 years. If the central issue of ones guilt or innocence is irrelevant, whats the point other than state sanctioned murder.

Marcus Aurellis

[lenharper]

My principal objection to the death penalty is that, in a democracy, we are the state and the state is us. As such I do not choose to be an executioner. The state is not killing people on my behalf -- as a member of a democracy I am killing them and that is not something I wish to do.

The other factors -- innocent people being convicted of murder, the economic and racial bias inherent in the justice system, the cost of keeping a person on death row and he or she lauches numerous appeals -- are largely irrelevant to me. My opposition to the death penalty is simple -- I don't want to be responsible for taking another person's life.

[americanson]

Len. Earlier you stated that "You are known by the company you keep." Really? If that's the case then would you say Caanda is on the same level as BOTH Cuba And North Korea? After all they are the only two other nations without a two-tier health care system. Just some food for thought.

P.S. Whether you agree with the death penalty or not a 17 year old CAN distinguish from right and wrong especially regarding murder.

[lenharper]

Americanson.

to the best of my recollection I have never stated "you are known by the company you keep" -- if I have I certainly didn't state that with regard to this posting so I don't know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, this isn't about a two tier health care system. My objections to capital punishment have nothing to do with issues of deterence, cost, or whether a seventeen year old should be judged as an adult. I object to capital punishment because I want to go through my lifetime without sanctioning execution.

Since you brought this "American issue" to this board I am simply stating that I object to capital punisment in toto.

[Asterix]

Len. Earlier you stated that "You are known by the company you keep."

Nope, that was me, your friendly fellow american. Considering the mess we have with health care here in the US, probably not the best example you could come up with, but go ahead and answer bbk's question as best you can.

When you're done with that you can try and answer my question to you from a few pages back. Even putting aside moral issues, explain to me how the death penalty works on any level other than as a means of exacting revenge.

[The Shake]

Disheartening?

I can - almost - understand why some people want to execute kids (despite the fact that it's a barbaric practice that no other socially responsible or even remotely democratic country follows), but to be disheartened by it? You talk as if exterminating a teenager is some sort of life-affirming ritual of Americana!

You really are a queer duck, Americanson. Please don't ever change.

[Asterix]

Easy for you to say. You don't live in the same country.

C'mon americanson, step up to the plate and put your reasoning on the table (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) After all, you started this thread.

[americanson]

Asterix. Yes that was my bad sorry. Anyways to acknowledge your points:

1) Yes the death penalty is a means of revenge. So what? The vixtims and their families are all too often the forgootten ones while everyone focuses on "the poor murderer" I would even go so far as to say it is a means of self-defense seeing that executed scum can never return to infringe future harm.

2) Thanks for the compliments Shake. No it's not a ritual but rather a means of holding those accountable for their actions. After all they can legally drive and become parents at 17 and they obviously know how to use the handguns so.....

3) B.B. I beleive (I read in the cdn papers) that Canada's health-care system was "public" and the quote (Cuba And North Korea) is actually taken from A National Post article by Paul Jackson. I don't have the link sorry but if I am mistaken then it's an honest mistake seeing how that's what I read. And no I am NOT saying Canada is anywhere near the level of either country. I messed up the Asterix and Len quote my bad as well.

4) Health Care. There's currently about 45 million americans (about 1 in 8 or so) without health coverage. This deserves a well-thought out response are you ready? Here it comes: So What? First off god-forbid they ever get sick and what makes you think exactly that they will?

Secondly, if they do require surgery or any other life-saving procedure it is provided by FEDERAL LAW.

Thirdly: We don't want our taxes raised but thanks anyways. Not even the democrats are that foolish to run on that platform. Though it is worth noting that in 1984 Walter Mondale And In 1972 George Mcgovern Both ran on that and guess what both lost 49 of the 50 states. Also, Nader is never gonna be president precisely because of his "socialist" stance" Not that he ever had much of a chance to begin with.

[red]

they get free medical assistance if they require surgery or other life-saving medical assistance? then why does anyone have health insurance?

[americanson]

Red. They are billed for it. Some are forced to declare bankruptcy if they can't pay. However, usually the insurance companies charge higher premiums to customers or in rare cases tax dollars are used.

[red]

Red. They are billed for it. Some are forced to declare bankruptcy if they can't pay. However, usually the insurance companies charge higher premiums to customers or in rare cases tax dollars are used.
ok - thats how i thought it worked

[Cardinal Fang]

Red. They are billed for it. Some are forced to declare bankruptcy if they can't pay.

How nice. You're saved but face a future of financial ruin vs. you die but leave this world with a good credit history. Sounds great to me.

[americanson]

Which would you choose Fang? Besides please note that I said some not all and quite frankly I can think of things a whole lot worse than declaring backruptcy. Granted I can also think of things a whole lot better than declarinbg bankruptcy as well but truth be told it's not a major problem down here.

[Cardinal Fang]

Which would you choose Fang?

They both suck americanson. It's a choice I luckly don't have to make and never ever hope to have to make if I continue to live in a more compassionate country. To have to choose between life with forced slavery (to pay off your bills) or death is not much of a choice.



Besides please note that I said some not all and quite frankly I can think of things a whole lot worse than declaring backruptcy. Granted I can also think of things a whole lot better than declarinbg bankruptcy as well but truth be told it's not a major problem down here.

No not at all! And I doubt that affects your economy either.

[jwmorrice]

The Debt-Peonage Society
By PAUL KRUGMAN (New York Times)

Published: March 8, 2005

Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families.

The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls "risk privatization": a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity.

The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments.

The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise.

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy - including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors - who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an "asset protection trust," which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern.

As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions.

Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage.

Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security.

The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy - and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make bankruptcy law harsher, too.

Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a "sharecroppers' society" than an "ownership society." But I think the right term is a "debt peonage" society - after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

[americanson]

Just rememebr Fang that it's due largely to the U.S. military that Canada can afford their social programs. In other words because Ottawa opts not to provide defense for Canada (hiding behind us military) they can "afford" to be the more compassionate country.

JW. I wouldn't put any stick into what the New York Slimes saysd espcially Krugman. Heck, after Bush attacked Afghanistan Maureen Dowd with a straight face wrote that the Bush walked right into their trap. Yep those bastard Talibans had our troops right where they wanted us in December 2001 for sure.

P.S. I don't deny Krugman's claim that half the bankruptcies are from medical expenses but that doesn't tell the whole story now does it? In other words how many are a result of choice vs I can't continue like this?

[Cardinal Fang]

Just rememebr Fang that it's due largely to the U.S. military that Canada can afford their social programs. In other words because Ottawa opts not to provide defense for Canada (hiding behind us military) they can "afford" to be the more compassionate country.

Ya that's it Americanson.

:rolleyes:

We just hope you never catch on.....

[red]

Which would you choose Fang? Besides please note that I said some not all and quite frankly I can think of things a whole lot worse than declaring backruptcy. Granted I can also think of things a whole lot better than declarinbg bankruptcy as well but truth be told it's not a major problem down here.
its actually the leading cause of personal bankruptcies in the US

[jwmorrice]

The following is a rather interesting study on the subject: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

I don't believe it gives any indication that those involved are getting off lightly.

jwm

[Cardinal Fang]

Americanson, if you believe that declaring bankruptcy is as easy as a walk in the park and that after which you will go on with your life as if nothing has happened you are far more ignorant than I could ever imagined. Personal bankruptcy hurts and stays with you a lifetime.

[mrpolarbear]

Which would you choose Fang? Besides please note that I said some not all and quite frankly I can think of things a whole lot worse than declaring backruptcy. Granted I can also think of things a whole lot better than declarinbg bankruptcy as well but truth be told it's not a major problem down here. Are you nuts? Health care bills are the #1 reason people file bk here in the states.

[red]

Ya that's it Americanson.

:rolleyes:

We just hope you never catch on.....


its true. and whats more, if we would only do our part- the US would introduce socialized medicine within two weeks

[Asterix]

1) Yes the death penalty is a means of revenge. So what? The vixtims and their families are all too often the forgootten ones while everyone focuses on "the poor murderer" I would even go so far as to say it is a means of self-defense seeing that executed scum can never return to infringe future harm.


That's it? So you admit that the death penalty is ineffective except as a means of revenge. Well, at least you're making progress. I remember awhile back when you were convinced Texas had the lowest homicide rate in the country because of how it applied the death penalty, until I had to show you it has one of the highest. You could make a much better case correlating gun ownership per capita and homicides. As a comparison, the US homicide rate per capita is three times that of Canada, with approximately two thirds of murders involving guns, as opposed to one third in Canada. Also since Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976, homicide rates didn't go up, they went down. From 1976 to 2001 killings dropped by 23%. Go figure.

Spare me "the poor murderer" line. People who have committed heinous crimes and pose a future threat should be locked up for good. Period. But to justify executing somone based on what you think they might do next, stands the justice system on it's head, don't you think? Unless of course you live in Iran.



4) Health Care. There's currently about 45 million americans (about 1 in 8 or so) without health coverage. This deserves a well-thought out response are you ready? Here it comes: So What? First off god-forbid they ever get sick and what makes you think exactly that they will?


Now you're just being silly. It is precisely because these people lack health care that they stand a much higher chance of getting sick and contracting fatal diseases than those who are insured. People who are uninsured often avoid even routine and preventative care because they can't afford it. Many won't see a doctor until they're already very sick or it's too late. Also it's been shown that people without coverage are billed more than the insurance companies of those with coverage, for the same procedures. Alot more. Obviously many of them never pay back what they owe, so it ends up costing all of us. Great system. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide people with basic coverage so they didn't get sick in the first place, or is that too complicated an idea?

[papasmerf]

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can wait till they turn 18 to fry them.

I know we have to wait for them to screw up in prision. I am willing to take that bet.

[someone]

Just rememebr Fang that it's due largely to the U.S. military that Canada can afford their social programs. In other words because Ottawa opts not to provide defense for Canada (hiding behind us military) they can "afford" to be the more compassionate country.
That's not true. European countries manage to have both health care programs and militaries.

[The Shake]

Are there no debtor prisons? No poor houses?

You bleeding hearts just don't get it - why should I have to pay my taxes for all of those damn freeloading cancer patients?!? Fucking lazy asses, the lot of them.

I say that we force them to pay off their medical bills by cleaning bedpans and other labours within the hospitals. The only reason why they can't afford to pay their bills is because they are lacking in work ethic!

[The Shake]

Are there no debtor prisons? No poor houses?

You bleeding hearts just don't get it - why should I have to pay my taxes for all of those damn freeloading cancer patients?!? Fucking lazy asses, the lot of them.

I say that we force them to pay off their medical bills by cleaning bedpans and other labours within the hospitals. The only reason why they can't afford to pay their bills is because they are lacking in work ethic!

Oh, and of course, we need to seriously consider capital punishment for those who refuse to pay their bills, ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN!

[jwmorrice]

Are there no debtor prisons? No poor houses?

You bleeding hearts just don't get it - why should I have to pay my taxes for all of those damn freeloading cancer patients?!? Fucking lazy asses, the lot of them.

I say that we force them to pay off their medical bills by cleaning bedpans and other labours within the hospitals. The only reason why they can't afford to pay their bills is because they are lacking in work ethic!

Too easy on the lazy bastards. Americanson would probably prefer the approach taken in ancient Rome: "If the debtor be insolvent to serve creditors, let his body be cut in pieces on the third market day. It may be cut into more or fewer pieces with impunity. Or, if his creditors consent to it, let him be sold to foreigners beyond the Tiber.
—Twelve Tables, Table III, 6 (ca. 450 B.C.)"

Cool eh? It's from the article that I cited in an earlier post.

jwm

[americanson]

Asterix. Yes it's true that the 12 states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the 38 states that do have it. So What? A murderer deserves to die becuase he "gave up" his own right to live when he committed his heinous act. Those opposed say that "We kill people to show killing is wrong." Har. Har. Actually the more accurate statement is "We execute a few sickos to show the general public that we will not tolerate others restricting freedoms." Namely their freedom to live. Life in prison is undoubeedly tough but clearly not as bad as the death penalty for the scum. How do I know this? Simple? Why do most of them fight to have their death sentences overturned to life in prison if it's just as bad as death?

Even Clinton saw this. Back in 1992 when he was running vs Bush he took time out of his campaign to fly back to Arkansas to personally oversee the execution of a severely retarded man. I forget the man's name but he said he was saving his desert for after the execution. This was in August of 1992.

Personal Bankruptcies etc? I don't deny that it's a problem but really to what extent? Are the American people going broke because they're getting sick and can't afford their medical bils? Hardly. Also, for the umpteenth time over WE DONT WANT SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. Understood. Good.

[americanson]

Sorry. This belongs in sports I know but Mrpolarbear will you be in St.Louis for the final four? And what do you think Illinois' chances are? Dee Brown deserves a title I think and feel that just so long as they don't run into my Blue Devils then Illinois will probably win.

[Asterix]

Ah, the death penalty and sporting events. Why do I get the impression americanson would have a tailgate party at an execution? Your pm function doesn't work?

[americanson]

It should Asterix. Anyways let's cut this debate short as neither one of us is getting anywhere. You can hold your own views and I'll gladly hold mine. Fair enough?

[mrpolarbear]

Sorry. This belongs in sports I know but Mrpolarbear will you be in St.Louis for the final four? And what do you think Illinois' chances are? Dee Brown deserves a title I think and feel that just so long as they don't run into my Blue Devils then Illinois will probably win. I'll be there , Duke sucks, and your post above this one should read YOU dont want socialized medicine. I do, and i have very good insurance thru my employer but that could change tomorrow. :)

[Asterix]

As far as i concern, China doesn't have the executions of people under 16 years old.

I don't know about under 16 years old in China, but I am sure they have executed those convicted of crimes when under 18. Which brings up an interesting point, how low will some of these countries go as far as age is concerned.

Also, just to clarify, in the countries I listed these are executions of people who committed crimes while juveniles. I believe in most cases by the time of execution they are already adults. I guess it's considered more sporting to let them grow up a bit before killing them.

[islandboy]

What is the law. Something static that constantly needs to rewritten unless each i and t fit the circumstance? No, not in the common law tradition of evolving thought. Is the law a mere question of how one manipulates the definitions of the words? No, not in the common law tradition - though that interpretation of words is important. Is the law something that attempts to - and claims it does - reflect societal consensus at the time it is written. Yes, in all traditions.

Law is bent by both conservatives and liberals all the time in a number of ways. Scalia will only consider certain theoretical tests - or so he says. Florida, with the Bush case, relied upon that Courts own notions of justice and entitlement to vote without reference to defined principals or legislative history.

Now days many laws are specifically written nowdays to address the situtation that is then present. What is commercialy reasonable one decade may not be commercially reasonable the next decade. But in fact no matter how laws are written the writers invest a certain spirit or point of view in what in being analized. The limts of how far one can interprete or extrapolate are always being questioned. The inquiry has merit. But when we speak of what is "cruel and unusual punishment " what better standard is there than to look at what the entire world thinks and learn from its point of view. What better protection is there that the decision is not a narrow one imposed by a few judges or by a prevailing political party or school of internal though?

While I am not fully comfortable with the decision for other reasons, this is one of these constitutional phrases that invited lookng at what the world thinks and can teach.

[papasmerf]

My Lord
this like so many threads have fallen into a self pleasuring sesson for many. If you agree with this decision you need not say much. If you disagre all you need do is say so and give a reason or two.

[someone]

I don't know about under 16 years old in China, but I am sure they have executed those convicted of crimes when under 18. Which brings up an interesting point, how low will some of these countries go as far as age is concerned.

Also, just to clarify, in the countries I listed these are executions of people who committed crimes while juveniles. I believe in most cases by the time of execution they are already adults. I guess it's considered more sporting to let them grow up a bit before killing them.

As far as China is concerned, it seems that there is some internal pressure for them to get rid of, or at least have better judicial reviews, of death penalty cases.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050318/CHINA18/TPFront/TopStories.

[someone]

And just how is the DP, in its current form, cruel or unusual? I understand the current favorite is the spike (lethal injection), heck they even get high one last time - more than they deserve. Not like boiling in oil, a practice that should be revived in certain cases as the original reasons for not doing so are no longer valid considerations in contemporary society.
Lang, I challenge you to come up with a post that can compete with this one. If you read the other posts in thread, you will find that he was very serious. You have no hope of winning. I rest my case.