Does he deserve to live? [Archive]

oldjones

03-21-2005, 09:57 AM

What amazes me is that this scumbag has a police file a foot thick - 24 arrests prior - yet he still was free to kill. Three strikes would have prevented this but now its time to fry. At least langeweille's frank about wanting revenge. Not an outrageous thought given the circumstances. Although we should remember before the lynching, that lots of confessions to heinous crimes have turned out to be false. It's why we have trials. But let's cut the crap about the death penalty/three strikes/minimum sentencing as prevention. Never worked, never will. If it ever had, you'd have the statistics to prove your point.

California—where the first three strikes law was passed—is no safer than it was before, the jails are full to bursting, and they can't build (or pay enough taxes for) new ones fast enough. Meantime prosecuters don't lay the third charges, judges won't hear them and juries won't convict, because for every 'deserving' bad guy there's a dozen just plain hard-luck cases where no interest is served by putting them away for life. And ya know something? When you're an overworked underpaid cop, probation officer, jailer, DA, PD, judge, jury member, social worker, you can't always tell the difference, or convince anyone even if you think you can tell. But of one thing you can be sure: the taxpayers will scream when it's time to pay for it.

This stuff has been baffling people for millenia; the kind of knee-jerk answer you offer does nothing but increase the volume level without contributing any content to the debate.

jwmorrice

03-21-2005, 10:33 AM

...the kind of knee-jerk answer you offer does nothing but increase the volume level without contributing any content to the debate.Well, you are talking about Peeping Tom! :p

jwm

slowandeasy

03-21-2005, 10:48 AM

At least langeweille's frank about wanting revenge. Not an outrageous thought given the circumstances. Although we should remember before the lynching, that lots of confessions to heinous crimes have turned out to be false. It's why we have trials. But let's cut the crap about the death penalty/three strikes/minimum sentencing as prevention. Never worked, never will. If it ever had, you'd have the statistics to prove your point.

California—where the first three strikes law was passed—is no safer than it was before, the jails are full to bursting, and they can't build (or pay enough taxes for) new ones fast enough. Meantime prosecuters don't lay the third charges, judges won't hear them and juries won't convict, because for every 'deserving' bad guy there's a dozen just plain hard-luck cases where no interest is served by putting them away for life. And ya know something? When you're an overworked underpaid cop, probation officer, jailer, DA, PD, judge, jury member, social worker, you can't always tell the difference, or convince anyone even if you think you can tell. But of one thing you can be sure: the taxpayers will scream when it's time to pay for it.

This stuff has been baffling people for millenia; the kind of knee-jerk answer you offer does nothing but increase the volume level without contributing any content to the debate.

Devil's Advocate:
-Anyone over the age of 16, convicted of a sexual assault/rape, sexual
touching etc of children under the age of 13 should be sentenced to death.
- Anyone with more than one conviction for rape,sexual assault etc should
sentenced to death;
- Anyone with a murder/manslaughter conviction etc, with more than one
other violent crime conviction should be sentenced to death;
- Anyone else want to fill in your request?
How many jail cells do you think that will free up?
More importantly, how many future crimes will this prevent?

For the record, I do not feel that the death penalty is an ideal solution.... but
then again we do not live in the ideal world.

Coach

03-21-2005, 11:04 AM

The issue of the death penalty definitely has many grey areas. However, this individual most certainly desrves to be put to death. He rans down there with Cliiford Olson and Paul Bernardo. Lowest form of garbage on this earth.
Of course, the option is to put them in jail among the general population. Justice would prevail in an unusual manner!

Vietor

03-21-2005, 11:44 AM

I have had an idea for a long time of what to do with the excess of violent criminals that our society produces. I conclude that we need a penal colony where the inmates labor on something productive to the whole. Only very basic human rights need be observed, since the inmates forfeited any further rights by their actions. Deviation from strict standards would be dealt with by immediate due process.

I propose that a large portion of Siberia be purchased from Russia to serve as the penal colony. This would provide Russia with the hard currency that it desperately needs and provide the U.S. with the "wild west" that may be a requisite part of our collective Psyche.

Just a thought.

oldjones

03-21-2005, 12:42 PM

Trouble with the deterrence argument is the huge number of periods and places in human history where it has not worked. There's just no evidence for it working. I'd venture an explanation: the kinda guy dumb enough to do this sorta stuf, or to shoot cops, or…, or… is just too dumb to process the thought of the consequences.

But I guess there must be a kind of bloodthirsty, self-righteous pleasure in devising imaginary torments and punishments for his sort. We get this kind of catalogue every time there's a case like this in the news. Somehow I never hear the "throw away the key" guys at election time asking which candidate will promise to raise our taxes so we can have bigger and better jails, and court systems to fill them.

Personally, I'd say our habitual offender laws already offer a decent chance at the only worthwhile objective here; getting the proven badguys off the street.

Peeping Tom

03-21-2005, 12:49 PM

I'm not advocating a lynching. This guy had 24 arrests in his history and was wanted on parole violations including provisions of the act governing registered sex offenders. This guy is a dangerous offender that slipped through the cracks of the criminal justice system thanks to the efforts of the criminal coddlers: He served less than two years of a ten year sentence for child molestation during a burglary - had he remained in prison it is likely a better profile could have been made concerning the future of this career criminal. Three strikes would have kept him behind bars and saved a girl's life - demonstrating just how highly effective such a policy is. If anything, this demonstrates the need for three strikes on a Federal level.

At least langeweille's frank about wanting revenge. Not an outrageous thought given the circumstances. Although we should remember before the lynching, that lots of confessions to heinous crimes have turned out to be false. It's why we have trials. But let's cut the crap about the death penalty/three strikes/minimum sentencing as prevention. Never worked, never will. If it ever had, you'd have the statistics to prove your point.

I notice a contradiction here - it doesn't work, yet the jails are bursting. Where are your stats?

California—where the first three strikes law was passed—is no safer than it was before, the jails are full to bursting, and they can't build (or pay enough taxes for) new ones fast enough.

Peeping Tom

03-21-2005, 12:54 PM

I usually don't agree with you but heck, when you're right you're right. I'll add that for cases where the proof is irrefutable, i.e. DNA evidence, all avenues of appeal get shut down to speed up the course of Justice.

Devil's Advocate:
-Anyone over the age of 16, convicted of a sexual assault/rape, sexual
touching etc of children under the age of 13 should be sentenced to death.
- Anyone with more than one conviction for rape,sexual assault etc should
sentenced to death;
- Anyone with a murder/manslaughter conviction etc, with more than one
other violent crime conviction should be sentenced to death;
- Anyone else want to fill in your request?
How many jail cells do you think that will free up?
More importantly, how many future crimes will this prevent?

For the record, I do not feel that the death penalty is an ideal solution.... but
then again we do not live in the ideal world.

someone

03-21-2005, 12:59 PM

Devil's Advocate:
-Anyone over the age of 16, convicted of a sexual assault/rape, sexual
touching etc of children under the age of 13 should be sentenced to death.
- Anyone with more than one conviction for rape,sexual assault etc should
sentenced to death;

Of course this means that he has nothing to lose by killing the victim and possibly a great deal to gain in terms of having no witnesses to his crime. This is why few jurisdictions still have the death penalty for kidnapping.

slowandeasy

03-21-2005, 01:56 PM

Of course this means that he has nothing to lose by killing the victim and possibly a great deal to gain in terms of having no witnesses to his crime. This is why few jurisdictions still have the death penalty for kidnapping.

Never thought of this... makes good sense...

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist or anything else that starts with psy, so do not take this as any kind of informed opinion: I really do not believe that someone who sexually assaults/molest/rape (or whatever the legal terms are) a very young child really can be "reformed or rehabilitated". More importantly, we need to protect our children at any cost.

I do not know anything about these studies indicating that "Capital punishment is not a deterrent", and therefore I am in no position to comment.

I have seen some statistics about the following:
Convicted felons have a very high tendency to repeat their crimes. This means that we tend to put a person in Jail two or three times for the same types of crimes. If this person gets the death penalty after just two similar crimes, then I would say that it cannot help but reduce crime. Does the 80/20 rule apply here? Are 80% of our crime caused by 20% of the population? Hmm.... we eliminate 1/2 of that 20%, do our crime rates
fall by 40%? A little far fetched perhaps??? More than a little you say???

However, research results tends to prove the point that the researcher was intent on proving. Did we not recently have a massive recall of some medications that were "heavily researched" but recently found to have direct links to heart attacks?

I don't know what the answer is to this dilemna... but I too often hear about ideal solutions for a problem when we do not live in an ideal world!!!!

I have heard the stats that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.... Has anyone got the crime stats from Cuba... I bet you it's pretty low!!!!

oldjones

03-21-2005, 02:05 PM

I usually don't agree with you but heck, when you're right you're right. I'll add that for cases where the proof is irrefutable, i.e. DNA evidence, all avenues of appeal get shut down to speed up the course of Justice. Where did you get the idea any evidence, including DNA, can be irrefutable?

First of all DNA experts are quite meticulous in accurately expressing their findings as a set of probablilities only, no more. As we have seen here and in the US, sworn testimony by accredited and respected DNA experts has been blown out of the water more than once. They lie, are sloppy, and get it wrong like anyone else. And if the defence can afford their own DNA testing, it's not at all uncommon for them to produce quite different results in court. So where's irrefutable then?

Don't tell me: someone would have to judge! I know, let's have jury help the judge! Which would be irrefutable right up 'til you didn't like the verdict, wouldn't it? I know, we'll have appeals to keep you happy!

You're still imagining the hard, messy job of exacting justice can be accomplished by easy answers. Childish. If it was that easy, we'd have been doing it forever. Grow up.

Peeping Tom

03-21-2005, 04:43 PM

Punishment under the US criminal justice system is exactly that - punishment. It was never intended to be anything else, this in part to the fundamental definition of the State's ability to inflict a punishment in the first place. Indeed, one would not be able to define the State's ability to punish in terms of deterrence, lest one at the same time define the most tyrannical regime imaginable.

The consequence of considering deterrence in terms of sentencing results in reduced sentences and increased recidivism. One can't be deterred so the conclusion is then why punish - the criminal coddling of liberalism.

The most effective deterrent is strong lighting. The harshest sentences in the books have never deterred anyone.

For followup on the State's duty to punish I recommend John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. It is volume 51 and doesn't like to be linked directly so you have to go get it.

linky (http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm)

I do not know anything about these studies indicating that "Capital punishment is not a deterrent", and therefore I am in no position to comment.

cyrus

03-21-2005, 05:44 PM

PUNISHMENTS, DETERRENCE then read this and learn how it should be done! :D

Iran town rejoices at public hanging
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4355029.stm

batista7777

03-21-2005, 07:35 PM

PUNISHMENTS, DETERRENCE then read this and learn how it should be done! :D

Iran town rejoices at public hanging
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4355029.stm

I did not read the same article, but there was an article in the Globe & Mail in regards to this- where it said they whipped him w/ chains and then hung him (Angabunga to death). Wowthey kill him once to suffer, then kill again to remember what pain he caused to those families and victims. Now that's capital punishment.

oldjones

03-21-2005, 07:45 PM

…edit…

I have heard the stats that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.... Has anyone got the crime stats from Cuba... I bet you it's pretty low!!!! You might check out the stats for Texas while you're at it. For some reason the murder rate and the number of executions are both high. Way higher than non capital punishment states or Canada.

Cuba's rate is 7.8/100,000, a bit higher than the US's 7/100,000 (source: the first site on the list when I Googled for "murder rates by counrty" an anti-gun control site FWIW.) Those stats don't suggest a deterrent effect do they?

Peeping Tom

03-21-2005, 07:50 PM

The theatrical punishments typically enacted by a prince's wild acts of will often go beyond what a life can endure and the physical corpse's integrity. Some of the punishments involving regicide were rather elaborate.

I did not read the same article, but there was an article in the Globe & Mail in regards to this- where it said they whipped him w/ chains and then hung him (Angabunga to death). Wowthey kill him once to suffer, then kill again to remember what pain he caused to those families and victims. Now that's capital punishment.

slowandeasy

03-22-2005, 05:39 AM

You might check out the stats for Texas while you're at it. For some reason the murder rate and the number of executions are both high. Way higher than non capital punishment states or Canada.

Cuba's rate is 7.8/100,000, a bit higher than the US's 7/100,000 (source: the first site on the list when I Googled for "murder rates by counrty" an anti-gun control site FWIW.) Those stats don't suggest a deterrent effect do they?

I was just being silly with the Cuba reference, but I am shocked that it's higher than the US....

oldjones

03-22-2005, 06:29 AM

I was just being silly with the Cuba reference, but I am shocked that it's higher than the US.... Silly me for ever taking you seriously. Now, let's stick to the US, where lots of stats are available, and it's easier to avoid comparing apples and oranges; Where are the statistics, or any evidence at all to support your assertion that the death penalty deters? Time to put up.

PS: About the apples and oranges and Cuba: you mean you expected the socialist workers' paradise would have a lower murder rate than the streets-paved-with-gold capitalist one?

langeweile

03-22-2005, 07:14 AM

For those of you who are constantly harping the "non deterrent issue", where is your prrof that a kinder and gentler approach works better?
Every crime stat that i saw for every country has a consistent increase in crime, with many few exceptions.
Ironically in the past crimes had been the lowest in totalitarian regimes i.e. the former communist countries. Today only Singapore can boost such a record.BTW none of these countries promote an easier and softer way.

The rise in crime is due to a lack of willingness(or money)to enforce the law.

Cardinal Fang

03-22-2005, 08:01 AM

The rise in crime is due to a lack of willingness(or money)to enforce the law.

That's an incredibly simplistic view of a complex problem.

Cardinal Fang

03-22-2005, 08:10 AM

For those of you who are constantly harping the "non deterrent issue", where is your prrof that a kinder and gentler approach works better?

People for Capital Punishment have constantly argued that it's a deterrent when in fact it's not. It's revenge pure and simple. First examine the reason people are committing violent crime before you just flip the switch. I didn't realize that locking someone up for the rest of their natural lives was kindler.

From:

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

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above."

someone

03-22-2005, 08:16 AM

The rise in crime is due to a lack of willingness(or money)to enforce the law.
What rise in crime? As I posted in response to another such claim you made, crime has come down over the last decade.

oldjones

03-22-2005, 09:35 AM

For those of you who are constantly harping the "non deterrent issue", where is your prrof that a kinder and gentler approach works better?…edit… No such claim is made, so there's nothing to prove. But surely those who want to bloody all our hands with official killings do have such an obligation to prove a high purpose is achieved. But do see His Eminence's post above.

…edit…The rise in crime is due to a lack of willingness(or money)to enforce the law. Of course without any laws at all there would be no crime at all (just kidding folks). Again, while I agree that you have to be willing to spend to fix things, laws are only part of the fix. Bad laws, and bad enforcement—see 'three strikes', grandstanding cops, electioneering DAs and the like —just make things worse. Or at best, gave us what we have. More of the same won't fix it.

Fact is, these 'bad' people just are not in your game, due to anything from genetics to culture, to economics, to mental unbalance. So all the changes you make to the game rules better be focussed on making you play better, 'cause if they got your point they wouldn't be crooks. And not playing by the rules is sorta the definition of a crook isn't it?

onthebottom

03-22-2005, 11:41 AM

Does he deserve to live - no

Will killing him do any good – no

I have a 13yr daughter and if anyone raped her I’d kill them, no question asked.

Unless we are willing to implement a Singapore style capital punishment system in the US (which we are not) then I see it as a complete waste of time/money. It costs more to put a man to death than to lock him up for life, more death row inmates die on death row than are put to death by the state. I've said this before, the only positive outcome from capital punishment is that it pisses Europe off.....

OTB

langeweile

03-22-2005, 11:49 AM

.....I've said this before, the only positive outcome from capital punishment is that it pisses Europe off.....

OTB

Finally, a valid argument for the death penalty, just that makes it worth it.

Coach

03-22-2005, 06:26 PM

Does this person - who committed the heinous act - deserve to live? Does Cliiford Olson? Paul Bernardo?

Peeping Tom

03-22-2005, 07:03 PM

That was well said - the revenge crowds never recognize that, to act as if one were in an honour culture, one needs to take responsibility for the deed.

Fortunately the Florida dad won't have to risk his life. The perpetrator was caught and the criminal justice system is going to what it was designed to - stick a needle in the creep's arm.

I have a daughter too and had anyone hurt her I would most likely hunt and kill that person but I would freely admit it to a court and take my punishment even if it was in Texas.

Peeping Tom

03-22-2005, 07:12 PM

OTB, it isn't a question of cost, it is the principle of justice served. If it were reduced to cost / benefit analysis, shooting most serious offenders on the spot would make sense. Besides, the number of death row inmates is insignificant compared to the prison population in general and the expense of executing them is insignificant in terms of the overall costs of the criminal justice system.

I agree whole heartedly about the value of pissing off Europe. I say that for this end it would be worth bringing back spectacular punishment in certain cases, i.e., if we get OBL we boil him in oil on nation wide tv.

It costs more to put a man to death than to lock him up for life, more death row inmates die on death row than are put to death by the state. I've said this before, the only positive outcome from capital punishment is that it pisses Europe off.....

OTB

Quest4Less

03-29-2005, 08:00 PM

Never mind trying to deter the next guy... at least killing this one prevents HIM from doing it again.

assoholic

03-29-2005, 08:20 PM

slowandeasy

03-30-2005, 11:38 AM

..how about instead of breaking in and killing her he launched an illegal war and dropped a bomb on your house killing your entire family. Say as well his name rhymed with tush.Interesting how you get so worked up about some people being killed but not others, interesting.

How about if he HIJACKS everyone else's thread with his agenda when it has nothing to do with the topic... causing them to become really annoyed. Say as well that his name rhymed with crass..... intersesting....

oldjones

03-30-2005, 01:02 PM

langeweile

03-30-2005, 02:11 PM

You know OTB, I agree with you about daughters - I have a daughter too and had anyone hurt her I would most likely hunt and kill that person but I would freely admit it to a court and take my punishment even if it was in Texas.

It's not enough that you advocate the capital punishment for teenagers (I believe you did that) but now you advocate corporal punishment for spitting gum on the sidewalk - unbelievable. What is next for you conservatives - bring back the stocks or better still lets burn a few witches at the stake when the markets do badly (have to blame someone for that) besides I know a few witches I would like to see ........

bbk

BBK you are over top ...again.
There is bit of differnce between burning witches and bringing back some good old corporal punishment.
If you see what the effect is I suggest you look at Singapore. Why should we not punish someone that has no respect for public property?Why should you not be severely punished for using and selling drugs?
A lot of our problems today would be a whole lot smaller, if we "the good guys" stop taking crap from all the punks.

oldjones

03-30-2005, 02:35 PM

langeweile

03-30-2005, 03:12 PM

Just one question lang: What is criminal about using drugs? Coffee, tea—OK caffeine—tobacco, alcohol. All these are legal commercial drugs, and a couple of them are highly addictive and deadly. So is it the drug that's criminal? Why this one why not that one? Or is it the conduct of the user? But in that case why not prohibit and punish the conduct? Why punish the drug user who's bothering no one, just for using?
Drug laws are a fine example of laws that do not accomplish what they set out to. In fact they're a fine example of bad laws creating social problems. And if making harsh laws and enforcing them is all it takes, why isn't the whole world as sparkling pure as Singapore (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/XxWolFxX/neko-monopoly.jpg)? Could it be a little social intelligence is required?

Comparing coffee, tobacco and tea to alcohol, heroin, crack and cocaine is a bit of a stretch. As a recovering addict I can assure you that there is a vast difference.
In general I believe that people can do with their lives what they want, as long as my way of life doesn't suffer. In there is exactly the point.
Innocent people die due to irresponsible behaviour of drug/alcohol users, that is one direct impact.Plus due to other peoples irresponsible behaviour my cost of healthcare and insurance goes up.
If someone is stupid enough to do drugs or drink, why do I have to pay for it?

For your own entertainment I suggest you visit some of those detox centers, some of them have open meetings for addicts. There you can get a good look of what alcohol and drugs can do to people.
Maybe you change your mind or you start thinking differently about it.

A customer of mine lives in Singapore. I had the chance to talk to him about life in Singapore.
He told me that while some of the meassures are extreme, his 12 year old daughter, can go to school on her own halfway through the city, and he doesn't have to worry about her.

I guess it is a matter of priority.

slowandeasy

03-30-2005, 04:23 PM

You must understand assoholic that this thread is for imagining ever more bloodthirsty retribution that is to be visited upon the perpetrator of this crime. Please do not try to put it in a broader context. It is also unkind to suggest any kind of inconsistancy of viewpoint in the post of others—e.g. "summary execution by police officer on the spot doesn't seem to square with forcing the continued mechanical feeding of Terry Schiavo", or "preserving all foetuses from the instant of conception, but bombing Iraqi orphanages seems hard to justify".Uhuh. If you don't want to discuss the joys of strapping kids into Florida's chronically malfunctioning electric chair and juicing them 'til their brains boil and their hair catches fire, you shouldn't be here.
Oh, and the usefulness of such punishments is also out of order; just good ol' fashioned bloodlust here, with more or less self-righteousness depending on taste.

C'mon Old Jones... you know that is completely unfair to make an anology of this crime to the US invasion of Iraq or the death of innocents in a "war" illegal or not... even to make an argument for the inconsistency of someones viewpoint is stretching the realms of credibility...

I cannot pretend to know Mr. assoholic's intent, and perhaps you are clairvoyant... but nothing in his post indicated such deep introspection?

By the way Old Jones... please help me out with this dilemna:
Re: the death penalty... I am not a supporter of the death penalty. In some of these death penalty debates, I am shocked at some of the moronic logic for supporting the death penalty and I am similarly shocked by the moronic logic against the death penalty.

But as a father, I know that there are a few scenarios where I would kill the person who gravely harmed my child (given the opportunity). What father would not do the same????

Now I know that this is not the right thing to do, but there it is... given that how can I be againt the death penalty??? How can any father be against the death penalty??? I honestly do not believe that any good parent would tell you otherwise.

How do I reconcile the two beliefs... Anti-Death Penalty...but I would kill the man who raped or murdered my child???

oldjones

03-30-2005, 08:17 PM

Comparing coffee, tobacco and tea to alcohol, heroin, crack and cocaine is a bit of a stretch. As a recovering addict I can assure you that there is a vast difference.
In general I believe that people can do with their lives what they want, as long as my way of life doesn't suffer. In there is exactly the point.
Innocent people die due to irresponsible behaviour of drug/alcohol users, that is one direct impact.Plus due to other peoples irresponsible behaviour my cost of healthcare and insurance goes up.
If someone is stupid enough to do drugs or drink, why do I have to pay for it?

For your own entertainment I suggest you visit some of those detox centers, some of them have open meetings for addicts. There you can get a good look of what alcohol and drugs can do to people.
Maybe you change your mind or you start thinking differently about it.

A customer of mine lives in Singapore. I had the chance to talk to him about life in Singapore.
He told me that while some of the meassures are extreme, his 12 year old daughter, can go to school on her own halfway through the city, and he doesn't have to worry about her.

I guess it is a matter of priority.What alcohol or any drug does to the user is their business. Full stop. What the user does to anyone else may very well be your business, mine or society's. That's why you can't drink and drive. In this country, if you do you get a criminal record. But we don't ban alcohol. Tried it, it was a stupid, stupid mistake. Too bad some people never learn passing more criminal laws often just makes more criminals.

You seem to want it both ways: you said earlier you wanted strict laws against drug users, now you say, "people can do with their lives what they want, as long as my way of life doesn't suffer". No argument there. But then you try try to make the health care cost case. Fine: no health care for tobacco users, for butter-eaters, for sugar-junkies, for the obese, for….

We've all heard it before. It gets to the same question I began with: what makes one substance criminal and not the next? Just maybe, instead of the Ban the Bad Stuff bandaid approach, we might try to think what that "way of life" you talked about should be, and pass laws that attempt to actually protect it. The laws against heroin possession—at least we don't criminalize using here—didn't make your car stereo one bit more secure from theft. Gee, funny, the laws against theft didn't either. It takes more than harsh laws to make a society safe.

My niece and nephew travelled daily to school more than halfway across Toronto, by transit, from grade seven on; they're in high school now. My son didn't have so far to go, so he walked—but he did it from about age eight. Granted our sidewalks are full of chewing gum spots, and Singapore's aren't, but when I was there, I missed here.

I've been to detox; I have one of those criminal records I mentioned, but I've been off booze for a half dozen years, and off tobacco for two dozen. Tobacco was harder. Since you seem to think personal history's relevant, I also mention my three years working for the LeDain Drug Inquiry Commission here.

I absolutely agree with you basic principle: let people do what they want with their lives as long as my way of life isn't affected. So why do I have to pay the taxes to support their war on drugs?

Sorry, the drug thing's a bit OT, but you did bring them up.

oldjones

03-30-2005, 08:32 PM

…edit…How do I reconcile the two beliefs... Anti-Death Penalty...but I would kill the man who raped or murdered my child??? Well, let's see:
1) The death penalty, it appears, would not deter you, so it would make sense to be against it: the It's Ineffective Argument demonstrated.
2) Out of self-interest, you'd be against it as well, since the revenge-killing might very well get you the noose, needle, chair, gas, firing squad, whatever. Actually I believe Utah did away with the firing squad a year or two ago, though I've always thought the bullet in the back of the head rather efficient. But I digress, why you'd oppose the DP for yourself is obvious.
3) But as a father myself, I can well understand the impulse. However, as a member of society, I believe that all of us in some measure must give up the easy surrender to our impulses; it's why we aren't the rapists. It's why we must not become murderers, even under such horrendous circumstances.
4) Once we legitimize such impulses, then it's a short step indeed to the idiot who says, "never mind trials for those scum, just blow them away where thay stand". Words to that effect have legitimized every savage barbarity you can think of in this or any century, and always in the name of the right.
So you can see, while I understand your feelings, and hope neither of us has a gun at hand should we have to face such an awful circumstance, I don't actually think assoholic was wrong at all. He just gave way to his impulse, perhaps.

assoholic

03-30-2005, 08:33 PM

langeweile

03-31-2005, 06:23 AM

Nah Lang - your the Neanderthal. Corporal punishment - it went out of favour in the west long ago as cruel and unusual - society grew up lang maybe it's time for you to do the same.

bbk

To what result?
More crime than ever. Lack of respect for private property. lack of respect for yourself. Lack of personal responsibility
Failing schools. Failing families.etc.

if an insistent on my part on basic values and personal responsibility make me am Neanderthal, than thank you for the compliment.

langeweile

03-31-2005, 06:45 AM

What alcohol or any drug does to the user is their business. Full stop. What the user does to anyone else may very well be your business, mine or society's. That's why you can't drink and drive. In this country, if you do you get a criminal record. But we don't ban alcohol. Tried it, it was a stupid, stupid mistake. Too bad some people never learn passing more criminal laws often just makes more criminals.

You seem to want it both ways: you said earlier you wanted strict laws against drug users, now you say, "people can do with their lives what they want, as long as my way of life doesn't suffer". No argument there. But then you try try to make the health care cost case. Fine: no health care for tobacco users, for butter-eaters, for sugar-junkies, for the obese, for….

We've all heard it before. It gets to the same question I began with: what makes one substance criminal and not the next? Just maybe, instead of the Ban the Bad Stuff bandaid approach, we might try to think what that "way of life" you talked about should be, and pass laws that attempt to actually protect it. The laws against heroin possession—at least we don't criminalize using here—didn't make your car stereo one bit more secure from theft. Gee, funny, the laws against theft didn't either. It takes more than harsh laws to make a society safe.

My niece and nephew travelled daily to school more than halfway across Toronto, by transit, from grade seven on; they're in high school now. My son didn't have so far to go, so he walked—but he did it from about age eight. Granted our sidewalks are full of chewing gum spots, and Singapore's aren't, but when I was there, I missed here.

I've been to detox; I have one of those criminal records I mentioned, but I've been off booze for a half dozen years, and off tobacco for two dozen. Tobacco was harder. Since you seem to think personal history's relevant, I also mention my three years working for the LeDain Drug Inquiry Commission here.

I absolutely agree with you basic principle: let people do what they want with their lives as long as my way of life isn't affected. So why do I have to pay the taxes to support their war on drugs?

Sorry, the drug thing's a bit OT, but you did bring them up.

If you have been to detox you should know, that the way out of addiction starts by admitting the problem. Than to take personal responsibility for it and move on.
I am curious as to how exactly your world would look, when it comes to battling drugs and crime?
It is an interesting fact that AA or NA has the highest rate of recovery of all exisiting programs. Why is that? Is it because you have to want it?
I think so. An addict of any kind can't be helped, unless he/she wants it...really wants it.
My concern is that we as a society have to learn "tough love" and protect ourselves from those that don't want help.

The price on the "war on drugs" stands in no relationship to the price of healthcare. If we would just spend half of what we spend on health care on the "war on drugs", we could actually make a dent.
Do i believe we will ever win the "war on drugs". Hell no. If you want to get high you will always find a way, but I believe you should make to bear the consequences of your actions.
Yes, I put food and obesity in the same category. If you don't have the discipline and personal responsibility to just eat less, than why should I be held responsible for it?
My parents grew up in the after WW2 era, they have experienced what it means to be hungry. They know what it feels like to dig through garbage cans to look for potato peels.

Now the same crowd, that cried foul with the tobacco companies are now trying to paint McDonalds as the next bogeyman. Oh please give me a break.

oldjones

03-31-2005, 06:59 AM

If you have been to detox you should know, that the way out of addiction starts by admitting the problem. Than to take personal responsibility for it and move on.
I am curious as to how exactly your world would look, when it comes to battling drugs and crime?
It is an interesting fact that AA or NA has the highest rate of recovery of all exisiting programs. Why is that? Is it because you have to want it?
I think so. An addict of any kind can't be helped, unless he/she wants it...really wants it.…edit… So what's the good or purpose of your harsh laws against drug use? Make all the laws you want against theft, child abuse, failure to provide support, puking in a public place—against actual crimes/offenses against someone. But spare society the ineffective and wrong-headed laws against 'being bad' which is what drug using, or paying for sex (to get slightly closer to this board's reason for being) Just imagine the health care that could be provided with half the money spent 'fighting' drugs. You might even be able to begin teaching folks to take care of themselves.

As to your second paragraph; you're the one who justified the 'war on drugs' because the health care costs of drug use affected "your way of life". I don't buy it, and won't debate it unless you'd criminalize all self-destructive behavours like you do drugs. How do you justify picking and choosing was, and remains my still unanswered question.

After all, if you propose to visit the retributive justice that's the topic of this thread on all those who merely cost the health care system, you're way behind in your law-making.

slowandeasy

03-31-2005, 11:46 AM

Well, let's see:
1) The death penalty, it appears, would not deter you, so it would make sense to be against it: the It's Ineffective Argument demonstrated.
2) Out of self-interest, you'd be against it as well, since the revenge-killing might very well get you the noose, needle, chair, gas, firing squad, whatever. Actually I believe Utah did away with the firing squad a year or two ago, though I've always thought the bullet in the back of the head rather efficient. But I digress, why you'd oppose the DP for yourself is obvious.
3) But as a father myself, I can well understand the impulse. However, as a member of society, I believe that all of us in some measure must give up the easy surrender to our impulses; it's why we aren't the rapists. It's why we must not become murderers, even under such horrendous circumstances.
4) Once we legitimize such impulses, then it's a short step indeed to the idiot who says, "never mind trials for those scum, just blow them away where thay stand". Words to that effect have legitimized every savage barbarity you can think of in this or any century, and always in the name of the right.
So you can see, while I understand your feelings, and hope neither of us has a gun at hand should we have to face such an awful circumstance, I don't actually think assoholic was wrong at all. He just gave way to his impulse, perhaps.

Is it ok if I call you OJ (no offense meant).

Thank you for the thoughtful response.... You are right, assoholic's point would have been good had he not given way to the impulse of a bit of Bush Bashing binge... onomatopoeia (always wanted to use that word somewhere, now my grade 8 was not a complete waste)...

You are wrong about one thing however... I guess in my mind if I killed someone then I deserved to die... so in the scenario of taking out a child molester, i would expect to be put to death... if I did not do it myself..

I can only say that "cold blooded murder" and child abuse are acts that are beneath most animals. I do not believe that any creature in nature has sex with it's young... In these cases, the act of abusing a child reduces the "person" to a lower form, and hence makes it alright to "put them down".

yes...I know that I am stretching it, but can you at least meet me half way... can we publicly castrate them???
:)

slowandeasy

03-31-2005, 12:00 PM

Yep this would make good TV. :rolleyes: The solution to the child molester laws is to change them. Not being a lawyer I don't know if there would be a legal reason not to allow chemical castration after a sentence was served - a condition of being released or part of the original sentence.

bbk

Don't laugh... it just might happen. Everyday we have programs running that are borderline... Do you think that if OJ would have gotten the death penalty they would have televised that as well...

oldjones

03-31-2005, 02:01 PM

Don't laugh... it just might happen. Everyday we have programs running that are borderline... Do you think that if OJ would have gotten the death penalty they would have televised that as well... Wait a sec. Who you callin' OJ now?

langeweile

03-31-2005, 02:22 PM

So what's the good or purpose of your harsh laws against drug use? Make all the laws you want against theft, child abuse, failure to provide support, puking in a public place—against actual crimes/offenses against someone. But spare society the ineffective and wrong-headed laws against 'being bad' which is what drug using, or paying for sex (to get slightly closer to this board's reason for being) Just imagine the health care that could be provided with half the money spent 'fighting' drugs. You might even be able to begin teaching folks to take care of themselves.

As to your second paragraph; you're the one who justified the 'war on drugs' because the health care costs of drug use affected "your way of life". I don't buy it, and won't debate it unless you'd criminalize all self-destructive behavours like you do drugs. How do you justify picking and choosing was, and remains my still unanswered question.

After all, if you propose to visit the retributive justice that's the topic of this thread on all those who merely cost the health care system, you're way behind in your law-making.

To my own shame I have to admit that you lost me here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I guesss there is limits to my 9th grade education.

oldjones

03-31-2005, 02:47 PM

Perhaps you forgot what you'd said; it might have been more helpful had I quoted it instead of just referencing it. Sorry.

If you have been to detox you should know, that the way out of addiction starts by admitting the problem. Than to take personal responsibility for it and move on.
I am curious as to how exactly your world would look, when it comes to battling drugs and crime?
It is an interesting fact that AA or NA has the highest rate of recovery of all exisiting programs. Why is that? Is it because you have to want it?
I think so. An addict of any kind can't be helped, unless he/she wants it...really wants it.
My concern is that we as a society have to learn "tough love" and protect ourselves from those that don't want help.

The price on the "war on drugs" stands in no relationship to the price of healthcare. If we would just spend half of what we spend on health care on the "war on drugs", we could actually make a dent.
Do i believe we will ever win the "war on drugs". Hell no. If you want to get high you will always find a way, but I believe you should make to bear the consequences of your actions.
Yes, I put food and obesity in the same category. If you don't have the discipline and personal responsibility to just eat less, than why should I be held responsible for it?
My parents grew up in the after WW2 era, they have experienced what it means to be hungry. They know what it feels like to dig through garbage cans to look for potato peels.

Now the same crowd, that cried foul with the tobacco companies are now trying to paint McDonalds as the next bogeyman. Oh please give me a break.
After starting foursquare in favour of criminalising drug use, you're now saying only the users can 'cure' the problem. So I ask: what possible good are you doing with those criminal laws against it?

You justified the 'war on drugs' (which you admit won't ever be won) by pointing to health care costs burdening you, but you don't criminalize any of the other health costly behaviours you cite. Why criminalize drugs then, and why the particular drugs that you approve of locking people up for?

Many posts above, I questioned your dragging drugs into a thread about retribution for child rapists. If ever retribution didn't apply, IMO, it's in drug use cases. So how does it?
Hope the précis helped.

The Brus

03-31-2005, 04:02 PM

oldjones

03-31-2005, 04:29 PM

Slowandeasy;

You are absolutely correct on all points. Unfortunately, too many people are soft-headed when it comes to punishment for crimes. It must be the feminization of our culture where many feel sorry for the perpetrator of the crime and blame the victim.

I feel that we should extend capital punishment to car thieves, burglars and street-level drug dealers. In my opinion, these criminals are incorrigibles and their demise would benefit society.

I hate the premise that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Of course, it is. The perpetrator will not commit another crime once he is executed. Better look up the actual meaning of deterrant.
But you're right about how safe we'll be from the dead perps. So I'd add everyone who blows over 80. They're incorrigible—stats show they offend repeatedly—they cause huge amounts of suffering and pain to innocent victims. Given all the evidence and publicity telling them how stupidly criminal such behaviour is, they should be removed from the gene pool pronto.
I'm sure lots of others can chime in their favourite crimes for capital punishment. In no time, we could get a list as long as the Good Old Days in Merrie England when hangings were public spectacles. Say now, there's a thought.

slowandeasy

03-31-2005, 08:35 PM

..the thread was about genuine feelings of sympathy for what this girl went through and disgust that the perpetrator is not forced to face some justice.
I felt the same way.
Those that do not oppose something are for it.That tragedy has been visited thousands of times in Iraq, with nothing but blaise indifference by the right wingers in here.
Did I hurt his feelings, maybe, maybe I also made him think at least for a second about those kids in Iraq.
Crass, maybe, but a legitimate question, none the less.

Hey assoholic... here's the thing that rings hollow about your statement.. . there were many children and innocent men and women dying in Iraq before the new AXIS OF EVIL (the US) invaded the place, and you did not seem to care. What's happening in many African nations is probably much worse than what has happened in Iraq, but no out cry from the Anti-bush crowd..

You don't seem to care about those children...is it because they do not fit in your political agenda...

BTW... I lean to the left not the right!!!

So the children of the Congo or Sierra Leone or any number of these other countries where atrocities are being committed on a daily basis become important if the US decides to intervene.... Then you blame all deaths that occur in the country on the US ...

I just dont' get it the logic...

langeweile

04-01-2005, 06:31 AM

Hey assoholic... here's the thing that rings hollow about your statement.. . there were many children and innocent men and women dying in Iraq before the new AXIS OF EVIL (the US) invaded the place, and you did not seem to care. What's happening in many African nations is probably much worse than what has happened in Iraq, but no out cry from the Anti-bush crowd..

You don't seem to care about those children...is it because they do not fit in your political agenda...

BTW... I lean to the left not the right!!!

So the children of the Congo or Sierra Leone or any number of these other countries where atrocities are being committed on a daily basis become important if the US decides to intervene.... Then you blame all deaths that occur in the country on the US ...

I just dont' get it the logic...

YIPPPIE..once again has somebody managed to turn this thread in to USA bashing.......or should I say YAAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNN

Some of you guys have some serious issues.

langeweile

04-01-2005, 06:51 AM

As do you Lang. You're living proof of Clint Eastwood's statement - " If you go far enough right you meet the same fools on the left."

bbk
Unlike others here I never claim to have all the answers and don't put myself on an intellectual high ground.
People that take the "moral high ground" are as dangerous than those that take the "intellectual high ground". Especially if they talk down to the so called "stupid Americans" or "stupid right wingers".

oldjones

04-01-2005, 01:45 PM

Unlike others here I never claim to have all the answers and don't put myself on an intellectual high ground.
People that take the "moral high ground" are as dangerous than those that take the "intellectual high ground". Especially if they talk down to the so called "stupid Americans" or "stupid right wingers".Especially dangerous? How so?

This from the man who began this thread on a moralistic height so pointy an angel couldn't dance alone on it, let alone dance nicely with others. You're not trying to tempt me into speculating the danger is "especially" for those righty-tighty types because of the low places they frequent, and the danger of a gutter-drowning should even the lightest of reproaches actually land on them now, are you?

langeweile

04-01-2005, 01:56 PM

Especially dangerous? How so?

I don't trust anybody with an extremist agenda, those people are out for their own gain or have something to hide.

they either want to convince you that their particular brand of religion is the only real one or they want to sell you another social program.
Either way..buyer beware

oldjones

04-01-2005, 01:59 PM

I don't trust anybody with an extremist agenda, those people are out for their own gain or have something to hide.

they either want to convince you that their particular brand of religion is the only real one or they want to sell you another social program.
Either way..buyer beware Geez there you go again, slip slidin' away from what you said. "Dangerous" was the word you used, before.

langeweile

04-01-2005, 02:05 PM

Geez there you go again, slip slidin' away from what you said. "Dangerous" was the word you used, before.

Yes..dangerous...anyone with an agenda for their own good is dangerous...sorry that you don't like my choice of words... :confused:

slowandeasy

04-01-2005, 08:33 PM

YIPPPIE..once again has somebody managed to turn this thread in to USA bashing.......or should I say YAAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNN

Some of you guys have some serious issues.

YIPPPIE..once again has somebody managed to turn this thread in to USA bashing.......or should I say YAAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNN

Some of you guys have some serious issues.

Dude, you need to take a pill... preferably something to calm your tension...

Below are some of my posts from this thread so far:

How about if he HIJACKS everyone else's thread with his agenda when it has nothing to do with the topic... causing them to become really annoyed. Say as well that his name rhymed with crass..... intersesting....

Originally Posted by slowandeasy
Hey assoholic... here's the thing that rings hollow about your statement.. . there were many children and innocent men and women dying in Iraq before the new AXIS OF EVIL (the US) invaded the place, and you did not seem to care. What's happening in many African nations is probably much worse than what has happened in Iraq, but no out cry from the Anti-bush crowd..

You don't seem to care about those children...is it because they do not fit in your political agenda...

BTW... I lean to the left not the right!!!

So the children of the Congo or Sierra Leone or any number of these other countries where atrocities are being committed on a daily basis become important if the US decides to intervene.... Then you blame all deaths that occur in the country on the US ...

I just dont' get it the logic...

If you had checked you might have noticed I had objected to assoholic's reference to the Iraq invasion and Bush as a killer of children... You might have also realized that my reference to the US as "the axis of Evil" was sarcasm....

In fact, I am a supporter of the US, but I do not agree with all of their foreign policy...

Your post accusing me of US bashing is the epotime of why it's so easy for people to bash the USA... Instead of YAAWNNNNNING, perhaps you should pay attention to what your allies are saying to you.....

Back to you BIIIIIIIIIGGGGGG YAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNN

assoholic

04-01-2005, 09:02 PM

langeweile

04-02-2005, 06:17 AM

Geez there you go again, slip slidin' away from what you said. "Dangerous" was the word you used, before.

Yes dangerous....whih part of this word don't you understand?
People that pretend to take the intellectual high ground, by either pretending they know what they are talking about or hide their agenda behind big words are dangerous.

oldjones

04-02-2005, 06:51 AM

Yes dangerous....whih part of this word don't you understand?
People that pretend to take the intellectual high ground, by either pretending they know what they are talking about or hide their agenda behind big words are dangerous. I understand the word perfectly, but just because you use it (and repeat it) doesn't make it so. As I asked before: dangerous? How so?

langeweile

04-02-2005, 07:01 AM

I understand the word perfectly, but just because you use it (and repeat it) doesn't make it so. As I asked before: dangerous? How so?

Dangerous because these people lie and hide behind a front of pretence.

oldjones

04-02-2005, 08:46 AM

Dangerous because these people lie and hide behind a front of pretence.You'll have to do better than that. You have named a rhetorical technique, not a danger. Disreputable for sure. One always has to verify what's stated as fact, lest it turn out to be 'made-up'.

But asserting untruths is as common as dirt. Sometimes, as is in the case of the Iraq invasion, one may not realize they are untrue. Sometimes, as in the Tonkin Gulf, there's deliberate deception. That's why one must always verify the stated facts.

Such techniques are in no way excusive to those, left or right wing who claim the moral high ground and, by definition, that's not a place where facts live. Why you claim it yourself everytime you sneer that America-bashing must be driving the opposition. What's this danger, I ask yet again? Surely not that we might believe such stuff?

slowandeasy

04-02-2005, 02:25 PM

..exactly what is your point ? the world is a miserable place, my point , is we should not act like Searra Leone exct, supposedly we in the West have a higher standard. You seem to be saying because it happens all over the place the fact the US does it is no big deal, or something like that. I am not really sure what you are argueing for ? the right to kill people ?

I do not feel that the world is a miserable place.

My point was and is that the children dying in Iraq are a convenient excuse for your Bush Bashing, and nothing more....... it irks me that you conveniently use them in your argument against Bush.... it pisses me off that you drag your political agenda to a thread that was about the outrage over the abuse and killing of a young girl...

The point is that if GWB had decided to invade Sierra Leone to try to stop that war... a bunch of you fark heads would somehow find a reason to blame Bush and his cronies for the deaths that ocurred there as well.

In any war, innocent people end up getting killed. In the Iraq war, the problem was exasperated by the fact that many Iraqi groups used non-military sites as their bases fighting a guerilla type war. The POTUS does not instruct his soldiers to target innocent women and children. The US does not target schools and daycare centers to drop their bombs on... The Generals in the US army do not instruct their troops to rape and dismember civilians.

Hopefully for the people of Iraq it will all be worth it in the end. We have seen one huge victory... The Election was held and an Iraqi govt was elected.

Hopefully the separatist and the terrorists will allow the country to start rebuilding...

assoholic

04-02-2005, 03:46 PM

"Hopefully for the people of Iraq it will all be worth it in the end", your sympathy is overwhelming.

langeweile

04-02-2005, 05:55 PM

You'll have to do better than that. You have named a rhetorical technique, not a danger. Disreputable for sure. One always has to verify what's stated as fact, lest it turn out to be 'made-up'.

But asserting untruths is as common as dirt. Sometimes, as is in the case of the Iraq invasion, one may not realize they are untrue. Sometimes, as in the Tonkin Gulf, there's deliberate deception. That's why one must always verify the stated facts.

Such techniques are in no way excusive to those, left or right wing who claim the moral high ground and, by definition, that's not a place where facts live. Why you claim it yourself everytime you sneer that America-bashing must be driving the opposition. What's this danger, I ask yet again? Surely not that we might believe such stuff?

See Germany from 1933 to 1945, they believed "that stuff"