| [spapad] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:13:43 PM | |
|
Well put Hellrider. It is not a simple matter.
Don't look at me as if I didn't know
Your vanity is all you ever show
What you believe and advocate
Fanatic dogma recycled from yesterday
Got a master plan
Genocide
Can't understand
People of the lie
You are to me the waste of flesh and blood
I'd love to see you buried in the mud
And when you die no one will shed a tear
So pass me by don't need your hatred here
Got a master plan
Genocide
Can't understand
People of the lie
Prejudice, intolerance, eye for an eye[SOLO - FRANK]You cannot hide behind those empty claims
Your racist pride is nothing but a game
And you will lose for right is on the side
Of those who choose to fight for humankind
Got a master plan
Genocide
Can't understand
People of the lie
You can't believe
Don't be deceived
Edited at: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:14:00 PM |
|
| [hellrider 31038] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:07:19 PM | |
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:00:42 PM | |
|
Sounds good.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:49:09 PM)| |  | ronhartsell wrote: | | Just teasing ya...I think I made my point of view pretty clear earlier...kill 'em or let 'em be guinea pig's for medical research...
| | | spapad wrote: | | Playing in one thing, taking lives is another.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Well...(ahem...) you were pretty quick to pick up a whip the other day...
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:49:09 PM | |
|
Just teasing ya...I think I made my point of view pretty clear earlier...kill 'em or let 'em be guinea pig's for medical research...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:45:50 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Playing in one thing, taking lives is another.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Well...(ahem...) you were pretty quick to pick up a whip the other day...
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:45:50 PM | |
|
Playing in one thing, taking lives is another.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:44:27 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Well...(ahem...) you were pretty quick to pick up a whip the other day...
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:44:27 PM | |
|
Well...(ahem...) you were pretty quick to pick up a whip the other day...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:38:24 PM) |
|
| [spapad] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:41:38 PM | |
|
No, I don't remember, but it seems barbaric to do the same in the name of the state. But, some of the worst offenders really deserve that and more. Should be a line you can get up to before that law comes into play. Once tried by a jury of your peers if they find what you did so reprehensabile, then it seems fair.
Ron, I would never be a judge and would hope I am never called to jury duty, because I would never want to make such decisions.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:37:52 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | Yes , they are going to put acid in his eyes,, Do you remember what country that was IN???? I saw it on a 20/20 show or dateline, or 48 hours it was a while ago,,,
| | | spapad wrote: | | What he did, he did intensionally, but I think he should have acid thrown in his face same as his victim.
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind. the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and take his vision away.
He will be blind for the rest of his life.. Just like his victum..
| | | spapad wrote: | | | Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:38:24 PM | |
|
lol...I'm glad you're not my judge...lol
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:35:35 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | What he did, he did intensionally, but I think he should have acid thrown in his face same as his victim.
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind. the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and take his vision away.
He will be blind for the rest of his life.. Just like his victum..
| | | spapad wrote: | | | Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme? |
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:37:52 PM | |
|
Yes , they are going to put acid in his eyes,, Do you remember what country that was IN???? I saw it on a 20/20 show or dateline, or 48 hours it was a while ago,,,
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:35:35 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | What he did, he did intensionally, but I think he should have acid thrown in his face same as his victim.
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind. the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and take his vision away.
He will be blind for the rest of his life.. Just like his victum..
| | | spapad wrote: | | | Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme? |
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:35:35 PM | |
|
What he did, he did intensionally, but I think he should have acid thrown in his face same as his victim.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:28:58 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind. the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and take his vision away.
He will be blind for the rest of his life.. Just like his victum..
| | | spapad wrote: | | | Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme? |
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:29:42 PM | |
|
I was going to say that but I held out....
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:27:23 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Even more in the name of religion...
| | | Dime/UNDER BLOOD RED SKIES!!!! wrote: | | Crime is caused by currency. If we could move past currency i think crime would fall dramatically. Think of all the crimes that revolve around money.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:28:58 PM | |
|
I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind. the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and take his vision away.
He will be blind for the rest of his life.. Just like his victum..
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:26:39 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | | Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme? |
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:27:23 PM | |
|
Even more in the name of religion...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Dime/UNDER BLOOD RED SKIES!!!! from Monday, June 08, 2009 8:09:07 PM)| | | Dime/UNDER BLOOD RED SKIES!!!! wrote: | | Crime is caused by currency. If we could move past currency i think crime would fall dramatically. Think of all the crimes that revolve around money.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:26:39 PM | |
|
| Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme? |
|
| [Dime/UNDER BLOOD RED SKIES!!!!] Monday, June 08, 2009 8:09:07 PM | |
|
Crime is caused by currency. If we could move past currency i think crime would fall dramatically. Think of all the crimes that revolve around money.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 5:00:11 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 6:42:06 PM | |
|
Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 5:00:11 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 5:00:11 PM | |
|
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 1:53:59 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 4:55:04 PM | |
|
Lol... No, no, no!!! Rehabilitation! See what the Germans are doing! Ok... its only for white neo nazis, but notice the social programme at the end! Thats how you treat convicts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbosdMmX9xc&feature=related
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:59 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | How about donating convicted murderers to Science??? Just the thought of that would be a deterrent, eh?? And it would serve humankind in general...guinea pigs, if you will...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 1:53:59 PM | |
|
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:05 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 1:53:00 PM | |
|
sounds good to me.
medical research.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:59 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | How about donating convicted murderers to Science??? Just the thought of that would be a deterrent, eh?? And it would serve humankind in general...guinea pigs, if you will...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 1:02:05 PM | |
|
| I don't mean to get the NRA and it's supporters on my ass, but I think there is a connection with gun laws and violent crime...look at China or Japan's gun laws and their crime rate...everyone, even the kids, pack heat in Iran...in the States, there's one form of firearm or another in the majority of residences and businesses...no one feels safe anymore and with good reason... |
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:49:11 PM | |
|
 You had me going there, Soy!!!...Thanks for keeping it real !!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:13:46 AM)| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HELLO RON....I WAS JUST BEING OFF-THE-WALL LIKE USUAL  .....OH I AGREE,VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF VICTIMS DON'T SEEM TO RECEIVE JUSTICE TOO OFTEN ANYMORE,IT'S NOT THE MONEY ISSUES THAT BOTHER ME-I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE HUNG UP ON MONEY THIS,AND MONEY THAT  -IT'S MORE OF A WHAT'S RIGHT ISSUE WITH ME,AS I'M SURE IT IS WITH YOU AND MOST,WE'VE ALL WITNESSED ON TV EXTREMELY VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITED,AND THEN THE OBLIGATORY LONG DRAWN OUT TRIALS,TO WHICH THE END RESULT IS TO SAY THE LEAST CRIMINAL IN ITSELF....I'M SORRY,BUT IF I WAS IN CHARGE,AND THE CRIME IS CUT AND DRY GUILTY,YOU'RE FERTILIZER BUDDY!...DONE,FINISHED,YOUR TIME HAS COME TO AN END....IN MY MIND SEVERE PUNISHMENTS ARE THE WAY,AND ONLY WAY TO HELP DETER THESE VILE PIECES OF HUMAN FILTH FROM THIS HEINOUS BEHAVIOUR.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Hi Soy...my argument is strictly based on doing to them what they did to others vs. having to spend tax payer money supporting them 'til they die a natural death...I'm all for the Island you envision so long as they are on their own, can't get off and we send no support...if they can plant gardens and be self-sustaining, I'd go for that, if given the choice...but until that option comes along, I'd have to regress to my previous post...
| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HOW ABOUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T SUPPORT EXECUTION,YOU SENTENCE THE MURDERERS,SERIAL KILLERS AND SUCH TO EXILE ON AN ISLAND,SIMILAR TO THE 'ESCAPE FROM NY' THINGY...YOU PUT 'EM IN THERE WITH THE SMOKERS,AND VOILA!....PROBLEM SOLVED,PLUS THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO SOCIETY...
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:59 PM | |
|
How about donating convicted murderers to Science??? Just the thought of that would be a deterrent, eh?? And it would serve humankind in general...guinea pigs, if you will...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:50:40 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:05 PM | |
|
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:54 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:45:54 PM | |
|
Well, looking on the bright side, it helps with unemployment. And as I said - rather keep them alive and on state money, than kill them. As far as Im concerned, its all better then execution.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:17 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | keeping them alive is somewhat a purpose. but the work doesnt benefit everyone, as we need guards, transport... more cost than benefit. if we could be sure of rehab, or keeping them secure, perhaps remote firelookout towers could be manned by them, dunno.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:54 AM | |
|
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52:12 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:17 AM | |
|
keeping them alive is somewhat a purpose. but the work doesnt benefit everyone, as we need guards, transport... more cost than benefit. if we could be sure of rehab, or keeping them secure, perhaps remote firelookout towers could be manned by them, dunno.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:50:40 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52:12 AM | |
|
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 9:28:49 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 10:50:40 AM | |
|
Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27:19 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Soylentgreen4u] Monday, June 08, 2009 10:13:46 AM | |
|
HELLO RON....I WAS JUST BEING OFF-THE-WALL LIKE USUAL .....OH I AGREE,VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF VICTIMS DON'T SEEM TO RECEIVE JUSTICE TOO OFTEN ANYMORE,IT'S NOT THE MONEY ISSUES THAT BOTHER ME-I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE HUNG UP ON MONEY THIS,AND MONEY THAT -IT'S MORE OF A WHAT'S RIGHT ISSUE WITH ME,AS I'M SURE IT IS WITH YOU AND MOST,WE'VE ALL WITNESSED ON TV EXTREMELY VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITED,AND THEN THE OBLIGATORY LONG DRAWN OUT TRIALS,TO WHICH THE END RESULT IS TO SAY THE LEAST CRIMINAL IN ITSELF....I'M SORRY,BUT IF I WAS IN CHARGE,AND THE CRIME IS CUT AND DRY GUILTY,YOU'RE FERTILIZER BUDDY!...DONE,FINISHED,YOUR TIME HAS COME TO AN END....IN MY MIND SEVERE PUNISHMENTS ARE THE WAY,AND ONLY WAY TO HELP DETER THESE VILE PIECES OF HUMAN FILTH FROM THIS HEINOUS BEHAVIOUR.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:18:48 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Hi Soy...my argument is strictly based on doing to them what they did to others vs. having to spend tax payer money supporting them 'til they die a natural death...I'm all for the Island you envision so long as they are on their own, can't get off and we send no support...if they can plant gardens and be self-sustaining, I'd go for that, if given the choice...but until that option comes along, I'd have to regress to my previous post...
| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HOW ABOUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T SUPPORT EXECUTION,YOU SENTENCE THE MURDERERS,SERIAL KILLERS AND SUCH TO EXILE ON AN ISLAND,SIMILAR TO THE 'ESCAPE FROM NY' THINGY...YOU PUT 'EM IN THERE WITH THE SMOKERS,AND VOILA!....PROBLEM SOLVED,PLUS THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO SOCIETY...
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:28:49 AM | |
|
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:48:09 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27:19 AM | |
|
no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:49:23 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:49:23 AM | |
|
Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:10:51 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:48:09 AM | |
|
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:14:41 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:14:41 AM | |
|
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 6:12:32 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:11:51 AM | |
|
yeah, I know. sounds good though. plus they might get blown off course
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:21:21 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | See HB, thwere's the cost of the pilot, fuel, co-pilot and a couple of ppl to push 'em out of the plain...too much trouble...a little rope and one good push and ta da no more murderer...
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. something could be learned from Iraq. I forget who said it, but the idea "give them flying lessons, take them up in a plane, toss them out without a parachute, and if they learn to fly on the way down, good for them!
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Capital Punishment in the States is a joke...Texas by far is the leader in executions each year...as comedian Ron White explains "Texas put in a speed lane for executions...if two or more see the murder happen and there is absolutely no doubt...")...they go straight to the front of the line...or something to that effect...otherwise they sit on death row for 15-20 years on our dime...wtf is that??? Hell, throw 'em off a cliff for all I care...especially convicted gangbangers who use fear and then murder...let 'em live a little as they're falling to their death's!!!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I agree. the death penalty is highly underused. of course here its non existant.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:10:51 AM | |
|
I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 6:12:32 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Monday, June 08, 2009 6:59:58 AM | |
|
Yes they have a sort of secret society with-in the prison them selves.. I studied serial killers for 6 months and wrote a paper on it for my psychology class..
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:24:34 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 6:12:32 AM | |
|
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 5:50:52 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 5:50:52 AM | |
|
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 5:03:25 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 5:03:25 AM | |
|
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
| [ron h] Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:21:21 PM | |
|
See HB, thwere's the cost of the pilot, fuel, co-pilot and a couple of ppl to push 'em out of the plain...too much trouble...a little rope and one good push and ta da no more murderer...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:44:55 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. something could be learned from Iraq. I forget who said it, but the idea "give them flying lessons, take them up in a plane, toss them out without a parachute, and if they learn to fly on the way down, good for them!
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Capital Punishment in the States is a joke...Texas by far is the leader in executions each year...as comedian Ron White explains "Texas put in a speed lane for executions...if two or more see the murder happen and there is absolutely no doubt...")...they go straight to the front of the line...or something to that effect...otherwise they sit on death row for 15-20 years on our dime...wtf is that??? Hell, throw 'em off a cliff for all I care...especially convicted gangbangers who use fear and then murder...let 'em live a little as they're falling to their death's!!!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I agree. the death penalty is highly underused. of course here its non existant.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:18:48 PM | |
|
Hi Soy...my argument is strictly based on doing to them what they did to others vs. having to spend tax payer money supporting them 'til they die a natural death...I'm all for the Island you envision so long as they are on their own, can't get off and we send no support...if they can plant gardens and be self-sustaining, I'd go for that, if given the choice...but until that option comes along, I'd have to regress to my previous post...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN from Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:52:30 PM)| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HOW ABOUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T SUPPORT EXECUTION,YOU SENTENCE THE MURDERERS,SERIAL KILLERS AND SUCH TO EXILE ON AN ISLAND,SIMILAR TO THE 'ESCAPE FROM NY' THINGY...YOU PUT 'EM IN THERE WITH THE SMOKERS,AND VOILA!....PROBLEM SOLVED,PLUS THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO SOCIETY...
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Soylentgreen4u] Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:52:30 PM | |
|
HOW ABOUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T SUPPORT EXECUTION,YOU SENTENCE THE MURDERERS,SERIAL KILLERS AND SUCH TO EXILE ON AN ISLAND,SIMILAR TO THE 'ESCAPE FROM NY' THINGY...YOU PUT 'EM IN THERE WITH THE SMOKERS,AND VOILA!....PROBLEM SOLVED,PLUS THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO SOCIETY...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:17:47 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:44:55 PM | |
|
yep. something could be learned from Iraq. I forget who said it, but the idea "give them flying lessons, take them up in a plane, toss them out without a parachute, and if they learn to fly on the way down, good for them!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:32:58 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Capital Punishment in the States is a joke...Texas by far is the leader in executions each year...as comedian Ron White explains "Texas put in a speed lane for executions...if two or more see the murder happen and there is absolutely no doubt...")...they go straight to the front of the line...or something to that effect...otherwise they sit on death row for 15-20 years on our dime...wtf is that??? Hell, throw 'em off a cliff for all I care...especially convicted gangbangers who use fear and then murder...let 'em live a little as they're falling to their death's!!!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I agree. the death penalty is highly underused. of course here its non existant.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:32:58 PM | |
|
Capital Punishment in the States is a joke...Texas by far is the leader in executions each year...as comedian Ron White explains "Texas put in a speed lane for executions...if two or more see the murder happen and there is absolutely no doubt...")...they go straight to the front of the line...or something to that effect...otherwise they sit on death row for 15-20 years on our dime...wtf is that??? Hell, throw 'em off a cliff for all I care...especially convicted gangbangers who use fear and then murder...let 'em live a little as they're falling to their death's!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:55:58 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | I agree. the death penalty is highly underused. of course here its non existant.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:27:07 PM | |
|
I'm sorry Spapad, I didn't mean to say you did...it's just a question to anyone...how can convicted felons think they have morals and who really cares?? I know they look down on rapists and child molesters the way law abiding ppl do, and what they do to them in the system...but that doesn't make me feel any better or safer...if anything it shows the fine line between controling ones anger and not being able to that separates us from the murderers...we control ours and they didn't...I don't thank them for what they do to the one's not in their 'class' because I wish someone would do it to them as well instead of wasting more and more tax payer money by keeping them all alive...it is money better spent on kid's and school's and medicine for those that have a chance and obey the law...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:37:50 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Never said they were right Ron, it's just even killers have a code, and they weed out the ones they feel unnecessary to be in their "class" Sick to it's core, but they do have a code.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | I've often wondered about that Spapad...morality among felon's...wtf is that??...I know you can tell me all about it, and I'm sure I know what you do about it...but wtf??
| | | spapad wrote: | | Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:55:58 PM | |
|
I agree. the death penalty is highly underused. of course here its non existant.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:17:47 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:55:08 PM | |
|
hey, if they kill off child molesters, good on them
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:37:50 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Never said they were right Ron, it's just even killers have a code, and they weed out the ones they feel unnecessary to be in their "class" Sick to it's core, but they do have a code.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | I've often wondered about that Spapad...morality among felon's...wtf is that??...I know you can tell me all about it, and I'm sure I know what you do about it...but wtf??
| | | spapad wrote: | | Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:37:50 PM | |
|
Never said they were right Ron, it's just even killers have a code, and they weed out the ones they feel unnecessary to be in their "class" Sick to it's core, but they do have a code.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:06:09 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | I've often wondered about that Spapad...morality among felon's...wtf is that??...I know you can tell me all about it, and I'm sure I know what you do about it...but wtf??
| | | spapad wrote: | | Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
|
|
| [ron h] Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:17:47 PM | |
|
My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:20:58 AM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:06:09 PM | |
|
I've often wondered about that Spapad...morality among felon's...wtf is that??...I know you can tell me all about it, and I'm sure I know what you do about it...but wtf??
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:24:34 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
|
| [spapad] Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:24:34 PM | |
|
Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:03:03 PM | |
|
| Ok, topic for Euros... European elections closed today. Anyone voted? I didnt, but I was still a bit disapointed when the conservatives won... Oh, well, not that the Euro parliament matters all that much. |
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM | |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:22:33 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:12:19 PM | |
|
ah, yes. keep the dangerous ones apart, forget money. I supose if they have it make them pay. I was refering to the ones who could be rehabed
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:44:18 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yeah, but the point I was trying to make is that in their case, rehabilitation is not a priority. just keeping them apart from the rest of society is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they should pay, some treat it as a free hotel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:44:18 AM | |
|
Well, yeah, but the point I was trying to make is that in their case, rehabilitation is not a priority. just keeping them apart from the rest of society is.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:22:52 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | they should pay, some treat it as a free hotel.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:23:05 AM | |
|
me too, given that it snowed overnight here.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:04:41 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Pity. I was hoping Id go someplace warm after I die.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | hell has frozen over, we agree.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I agree, actually. I am against both capital punishment and slave labour, but putting them to work like everyone else is a great idea. Not just that they would actualy serve their debt to the society, I think that it would help to turn prisons from criminal academies (which they are now) into real rehabilitation institutions, where people would actualy learn how to live like a normal member of a society. Benefits all around, I think.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:22:52 AM | |
|
they should pay, some treat it as a free hotel.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:08:30 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:22:33 AM | |
|
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:20:58 AM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:20:58 AM | |
|
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:08:30 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:08:30 AM | |
|
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:00:41 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:04:41 AM | |
|
Pity. I was hoping Id go someplace warm after I die.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:01:10 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | hell has frozen over, we agree.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I agree, actually. I am against both capital punishment and slave labour, but putting them to work like everyone else is a great idea. Not just that they would actualy serve their debt to the society, I think that it would help to turn prisons from criminal academies (which they are now) into real rehabilitation institutions, where people would actualy learn how to live like a normal member of a society. Benefits all around, I think.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:03:56 AM | |
|
Well, yeah, and we knew that when we went to the polls. The idea was that we are voting the lesser of two evils - and we were. Its jsut that they could have done a bit more, despite everything.
Anyway, as for your prime minister, if he accepted bribes, then I think its only right that he answers for it. Especialy if he was still in the office (which is not clear, if I got it right). Personaly I would give him a year of prison at least for the "whats wrong with taking envelopes of money" thing. Busted is busted, you dont have to be an arrogant ass about it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:49:04 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | our former PM is accused of coruption. he suposedly took envelopes of cash (200 grand or so) from a lobyist to work with him during his last days in office. he says he took them after he left office, and whats wrong with taking envelopes of cash anyway? then he didnt pay taxes on them till this guy was arested and spilled the beans... slimy bastard
strat EVERY govt is a disapointment, we just have to try to find the least disapointing.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | At least he was out. Our (now former) prime minister was accused of corruption more times than I can think of. From selling weapons to buying them. From subduing the national TV to newspapers. All sorts of shit, and he never even got trialed for it.
As far as elections are concerned... They will see me on referendums. On elections - never, ever again. Ive been twice, voted for a head of state and for a government party - both a disapointment.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | we had a convicted pedofile run for city council here. his sister found out and tiped the press off. his wife was still with him and had 5 more kids with him after he got out of jail. I used to live 4 houses from him, never knew.
he tried to blame the press too. dredging up unimportant issues. WTF? got my only letter to the editor published over that. if you cant trust the people you elect, for christ sakes dont elect them. he ended up droping out of the race.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, its not just Portugal, trust me... Not much better here. No paedophiles in the government that I know of, but thats just it... That I know of.
And of course, when a politican screws up on anything - blame the press. It was set up. Commie/Clerofascist journalists (depending on the politicans orientation) set it up. Yup, must be good to be a politician.
| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:01:10 AM | |
|
hell has frozen over, we agree.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:48:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I agree, actually. I am against both capital punishment and slave labour, but putting them to work like everyone else is a great idea. Not just that they would actualy serve their debt to the society, I think that it would help to turn prisons from criminal academies (which they are now) into real rehabilitation institutions, where people would actualy learn how to live like a normal member of a society. Benefits all around, I think.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:00:41 AM | |
|
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:32:28 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, June 06, 2009 7:49:04 AM | |
|
our former PM is accused of coruption. he suposedly took envelopes of cash (200 grand or so) from a lobyist to work with him during his last days in office. he says he took them after he left office, and whats wrong with taking envelopes of cash anyway? then he didnt pay taxes on them till this guy was arested and spilled the beans... slimy bastard
strat EVERY govt is a disapointment, we just have to try to find the least disapointing.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:53:28 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | At least he was out. Our (now former) prime minister was accused of corruption more times than I can think of. From selling weapons to buying them. From subduing the national TV to newspapers. All sorts of shit, and he never even got trialed for it.
As far as elections are concerned... They will see me on referendums. On elections - never, ever again. Ive been twice, voted for a head of state and for a government party - both a disapointment.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | we had a convicted pedofile run for city council here. his sister found out and tiped the press off. his wife was still with him and had 5 more kids with him after he got out of jail. I used to live 4 houses from him, never knew.
he tried to blame the press too. dredging up unimportant issues. WTF? got my only letter to the editor published over that. if you cant trust the people you elect, for christ sakes dont elect them. he ended up droping out of the race.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, its not just Portugal, trust me... Not much better here. No paedophiles in the government that I know of, but thats just it... That I know of.
And of course, when a politican screws up on anything - blame the press. It was set up. Commie/Clerofascist journalists (depending on the politicans orientation) set it up. Yup, must be good to be a politician.
| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:53:28 AM | |
|
At least he was out. Our (now former) prime minister was accused of corruption more times than I can think of. From selling weapons to buying them. From subduing the national TV to newspapers. All sorts of shit, and he never even got trialed for it.
As far as elections are concerned... They will see me on referendums. On elections - never, ever again. Ive been twice, voted for a head of state and for a government party - both a disapointment.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, June 05, 2009 10:00:14 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | we had a convicted pedofile run for city council here. his sister found out and tiped the press off. his wife was still with him and had 5 more kids with him after he got out of jail. I used to live 4 houses from him, never knew.
he tried to blame the press too. dredging up unimportant issues. WTF? got my only letter to the editor published over that. if you cant trust the people you elect, for christ sakes dont elect them. he ended up droping out of the race.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, its not just Portugal, trust me... Not much better here. No paedophiles in the government that I know of, but thats just it... That I know of.
And of course, when a politican screws up on anything - blame the press. It was set up. Commie/Clerofascist journalists (depending on the politicans orientation) set it up. Yup, must be good to be a politician.
| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:48:47 AM | |
|
I agree, actually. I am against both capital punishment and slave labour, but putting them to work like everyone else is a great idea. Not just that they would actualy serve their debt to the society, I think that it would help to turn prisons from criminal academies (which they are now) into real rehabilitation institutions, where people would actualy learn how to live like a normal member of a society. Benefits all around, I think.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:32:28 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:32:28 AM | |
|
If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
| [Head banger] Friday, June 05, 2009 10:44:39 PM | |
|
while the are in jail, what do they do. here, people say when they get out they paid their debt to society. WTF? you served however many years in jail on MY tab. you incured a second debt. first you incured a debt by robbing, killing...then we paid for a cop to chase you, a prosecutor, a judge, and probably your defense lawyer, then we paid for your room and board, clothing, health care, supervision, maintenance of your place, education, and if you claimed right, we drove you to visit your family. this is you PAYING your debt? then they talk of rehab, seriously.
in the real world people have to take care of themselfs, their place and WORK!!! basic rehab to me is people taking care of themselfs and working. have them get up, clean the place, make breakfast and go out and clean shit up. if they want to learn a skill or a trade, that they can demonstrate is something that will help then get a job, then fine, if it wont kill anyone, or cost too much then they can learn in the evening. how many people work full time jobs to suport them going to night school? go to prison its free.
if you make the sentance harder, something to be avoided, you could give shorter sentances. but give a real sentance. if its a year, then its a year. giving 2 years so the parole board can cut it down, silly. bunch more civil servants we need to hire just ot let everyone out. then they have to discount time served before trial, because its not part of the sentance. so if you wait a year in jail for trial, your sentance gets 2 years cut off it. then your lawyer negotiates a deal so you get three years , 2 served your eligable for parole before you know it.
send murderers away for ever, beter yet just put them out. rehab those who could be rehabed, get them to work. make it somewhere they dont want to go back to.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by DelivererofEvil from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:27:51 PM)| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, June 05, 2009 10:00:14 PM | |
|
we had a convicted pedofile run for city council here. his sister found out and tiped the press off. his wife was still with him and had 5 more kids with him after he got out of jail. I used to live 4 houses from him, never knew.
he tried to blame the press too. dredging up unimportant issues. WTF? got my only letter to the editor published over that. if you cant trust the people you elect, for christ sakes dont elect them. he ended up droping out of the race.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:35:13 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, its not just Portugal, trust me... Not much better here. No paedophiles in the government that I know of, but thats just it... That I know of.
And of course, when a politican screws up on anything - blame the press. It was set up. Commie/Clerofascist journalists (depending on the politicans orientation) set it up. Yup, must be good to be a politician.
| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, June 05, 2009 9:57:59 PM | |
|
clearly not fit for the public. and yes, a fast sentance is beter for all. do it and be done with it.
I say if michigan is closing prisons, tent camps like that guy in AZ has. in winter, you would get a very low rate or re ofenders.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Friday, June 05, 2009 8:31:09 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | Iam in Canada,, but when I lived in the USA,, it was worse, there..
The man that did the beheading had schizophrenia, and he was married and had children of his own, and decided to quit taking his medication. Where was his family/friends to help him,,, We had a family member with the disease also... and you can def tell when they are off there meds.. But he never wanted to kill anyone while off his meds..
SO I believe the defense for this man, won him case,, which in my eyes is a crock of shit.. How many schizophrenic people really Kill eat, and be-head other people when they go off there meds.. ???????
Oh and this was not his first violent offense either... He had another violent outburst while off the meds 2 years ago...
He is not fit for society, esp when He doesnt care enough about himself to take medication he needs, he a danger to the public.
Even though we dont have the death penalty here in Canada,, Iam a strong believer in it, and I also believe, Once a case has been proven beyond a reasonable dout dna, ect.. If the person is found guilty , By 6am the next morn, they should be put to death,, None of this sitting around lifting weights, and shooting pool with your buds for next 20 years,
or set a date and get them in line and fire up the chair...  ...
Sorry just my thought,, I hope this doesnot offend anyone,, !
MG~
Oh I just heard the state of Michigan is closing 8-12 prisons,,,, ???? where do you think those people are going to go???? they are over crowded allready.... Maybe your next door Neighbor????
| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | It's a pretty pissy subject, because we know that Justice, in Portugal, Sri Lank, China or the USA, hasn't been feeling well for a while. Be it overcrowded prisons, corrupt judicial systems or the opposite as in complete repression from authoritarian states, you name it. It makes me angry to start thinking about all the cases that I hear here in Portugal alone.
However, we mustn't lose focus here. Laws will be laws, and we (well, you americans) live in a country and states where they will probably be enforced. And saying that 40 years IS 40 years is already a big step on the road to keeping those f*ck*rs where they belong.
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Friday, June 05, 2009 8:49:40 PM | |
|
Yeah its a scary thought... esp when the general public will have no notification, as to who or where these people go.
I would hate to be living next door to TED BUNDY..
anywase, They announced it on the news around 6pm, the world news brodcast, about michigan.. Its not just michigan its happening all over where the states are going broke,, California plans on doing the same thing...
Its a sad day when you have to come to a desicion to have money for public school systems, or to keep prisons open??? I guess when they let every freak azoid out and they mangle and kill people, we wont have to worry about many children in school then either. Geesh..
Where are all the GITMO detainies going?????? They still dont know about those people either, I feel it should be a world leader decision .. as to where all those people end up.. Where the leaders of the counties involved decide.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 05, 2009 8:39:18 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Amen about that waiting in jail for 10+ years business before having the death penalty carried out. I was thinking the same when I hit your statement there.
Wow. That bit about Michigan is news to me. I agree. Where the heck are they going to GO? Especially when they suffer from overcrowding like most. Amazing. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Friday, June 05, 2009 8:31:09 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
Iam in Canada,, but when I lived in the USA,, it was worse, there..
The man that did the beheading had schizophrenia, and he was married and had children of his own, and decided to quit taking his medication. Where was his family/friends to help him,,, We had a family member with the disease also... and you can def tell when they are off there meds.. But he never wanted to kill anyone while off his meds..
SO I believe the defense for this man, won him case,, which in my eyes is a crock of shit.. How many schizophrenic people really Kill eat, and be-head other people when they go off there meds.. ???????
Oh and this was not his first violent offense either... He had another violent outburst while off the meds 2 years ago...
He is not fit for society, esp when He doesnt care enough about himself to take medication he needs, he a danger to the public.
Even though we dont have the death penalty here in Canada,, Iam a strong believer in it, and I also believe, Once a case has been proven beyond a reasonable dout dna, ect.. If the person is found guilty , By 6am the next morn, they should be put to death,, None of this sitting around lifting weights, and shooting pool with your buds for next 20 years,
or set a date and get them in line and fire up the chair... ...
Sorry just my thought,, I hope this doesnot offend anyone,, !
MG~
Oh I just heard the state of Michigan is closing 8-12 prisons,,,, ???? where do you think those people are going to go???? they are over crowded allready.... Maybe your next door Neighbor????
| |
|
DelivererofEvil wrote: |
| |
It's a pretty pissy subject, because we know that Justice, in Portugal, Sri Lank, China or the USA, hasn't been feeling well for a while. Be it overcrowded prisons, corrupt judicial systems or the opposite as in complete repression from authoritarian states, you name it. It makes me angry to start thinking about all the cases that I hear here in Portugal alone.
However, we mustn't lose focus here. Laws will be laws, and we (well, you americans) live in a country and states where they will probably be enforced. And saying that 40 years IS 40 years is already a big step on the road to keeping those f*ck*rs where they belong.
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
Edited at: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:41:44 PM |
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Friday, June 05, 2009 8:39:18 PM | |
|
Amen about that waiting in jail for 10+ years business before having the death penalty carried out. I was thinking the same when I hit your statement there.
Wow. That bit about Michigan is news to me. I agree. Where the heck are they going to GO? Especially when they suffer from overcrowding like most. Amazing. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Friday, June 05, 2009 8:31:09 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
Iam in Canada,, but when I lived in the USA,, it was worse, there..
The man that did the beheading had schizophrenia, and he was married and had children of his own, and decided to quit taking his medication. Where was his family/friends to help him,,, We had a family member with the disease also... and you can def tell when they are off there meds.. But he never wanted to kill anyone while off his meds..
SO I believe the defense for this man, won him case,, which in my eyes is a crock of shit.. How many schizophrenic people really Kill eat, and be-head other people when they go off there meds.. ???????
Oh and this was not his first violent offense either... He had another violent outburst while off the meds 2 years ago...
He is not fit for society, esp when He doesnt care enough about himself to take medication he needs, he a danger to the public.
Even though we dont have the death penalty here in Canada,, Iam a strong believer in it, and I also believe, Once a case has been proven beyond a reasonable dout dna, ect.. If the person is found guilty , By 6am the next morn, they should be put to death,, None of this sitting around lifting weights, and shooting pool with your buds for next 20 years,
or set a date and get them in line and fire up the chair... ...
Sorry just my thought,, I hope this doesnot offend anyone,, !
MG~
Oh I just heard the state of Michigan is closing 8-12 prisons,,,, ???? where do you think those people are going to go???? they are over crowded allready.... Maybe your next door Neighbor????
| |
|
DelivererofEvil wrote: |
| |
It's a pretty pissy subject, because we know that Justice, in Portugal, Sri Lank, China or the USA, hasn't been feeling well for a while. Be it overcrowded prisons, corrupt judicial systems or the opposite as in complete repression from authoritarian states, you name it. It makes me angry to start thinking about all the cases that I hear here in Portugal alone.
However, we mustn't lose focus here. Laws will be laws, and we (well, you americans) live in a country and states where they will probably be enforced. And saying that 40 years IS 40 years is already a big step on the road to keeping those f*ck*rs where they belong.
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
Edited at: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:41:44 PM |
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Friday, June 05, 2009 8:31:09 PM | |
|
Iam in Canada,, but when I lived in the USA,, it was worse, there..
The man that did the beheading had schizophrenia, and he was married and had children of his own, and decided to quit taking his medication. Where was his family/friends to help him,,, We had a family member with the disease also... and you can def tell when they are off there meds.. But he never wanted to kill anyone while off his meds..
SO I believe the defense for this man, won him case,, which in my eyes is a crock of shit.. How many schizophrenic people really Kill eat, and be-head other people when they go off there meds.. ???????
Oh and this was not his first violent offense either... He had another violent outburst while off the meds 2 years ago...
He is not fit for society, esp when He doesnt care enough about himself to take medication he needs, he a danger to the public.
Even though we dont have the death penalty here in Canada,, Iam a strong believer in it, and I also believe, Once a case has been proven beyond a reasonable dout dna, ect.. If the person is found guilty , By 6am the next morn, they should be put to death,, None of this sitting around lifting weights, and shooting pool with your buds for next 20 years,
or set a date and get them in line and fire up the chair... ...
Sorry just my thought,, I hope this doesnot offend anyone,, !
MG~
Oh I just heard the state of Michigan is closing 8-12 prisons,,,, ???? where do you think those people are going to go???? they are over crowded allready.... Maybe your next door Neighbor????
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by DelivererofEvil from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:34:21 PM)| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | It's a pretty pissy subject, because we know that Justice, in Portugal, Sri Lank, China or the USA, hasn't been feeling well for a while. Be it overcrowded prisons, corrupt judicial systems or the opposite as in complete repression from authoritarian states, you name it. It makes me angry to start thinking about all the cases that I hear here in Portugal alone.
However, we mustn't lose focus here. Laws will be laws, and we (well, you americans) live in a country and states where they will probably be enforced. And saying that 40 years IS 40 years is already a big step on the road to keeping those f*ck*rs where they belong.
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
|
| [Becks] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:37:54 PM | |
|
Oh man, I remember hearing about the beheading on the bus dude as well. Pretty sickening, I can't imagine how traumatised the people of the bus must have been.
I do think the insanity plea is used all too often. It makes a mockery of those who are actually mentally ill i.e. opens them up to questionning of their condition, people saying it's a load of crap etc.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:24:02 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:35:13 PM | |
|
Oh, its not just Portugal, trust me... Not much better here. No paedophiles in the government that I know of, but thats just it... That I know of.
And of course, when a politican screws up on anything - blame the press. It was set up. Commie/Clerofascist journalists (depending on the politicans orientation) set it up. Yup, must be good to be a politician.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by DelivererofEvil from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:27:51 PM)| | | DelivererofEvil wrote: | | I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
|
| [DelivererofEvil] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:34:21 PM | |
|
It's a pretty pissy subject, because we know that Justice, in Portugal, Sri Lank, China or the USA, hasn't been feeling well for a while. Be it overcrowded prisons, corrupt judicial systems or the opposite as in complete repression from authoritarian states, you name it. It makes me angry to start thinking about all the cases that I hear here in Portugal alone.
However, we mustn't lose focus here. Laws will be laws, and we (well, you americans) live in a country and states where they will probably be enforced. And saying that 40 years IS 40 years is already a big step on the road to keeping those f*ck*rs where they belong.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:24:02 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:31:38 PM | |
|
Oh yeah, I remember that case. The beheading thing, I mean.
Now, if the dude sits out just one year... I seriously dont know what to think about that. Then again, I dont suppose I should be surprised either. But... The fact is, he did what he did, he is mad, and I think that prison for life is the only thing that will do.
I mean, that kind of a case is not a murder that was done with a purpose. In some cases, I guess, a murderer kills only a single person, and probably wont kill anybody ever again, even if he/she doesnt even get punished for it (although he/she should be). In this case, the guy went berserk on a bus, and at a random victim. He is dangerous to everyone, and has to be phisycaly separated from everyone.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:24:02 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
|
| [DelivererofEvil] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:27:51 PM | |
|
I don't know how it works in the USA, I don't let the little bits of probably contaminated (by gossip) news from your justice department get to me, except for the big cases.
But I'll give you an example on how that law would be good if applied here in Portugal.
According to our legislation and the way justice is applied and enforced, we have no death sentence and no life emprisonment, our maximum sentence is 20 years. No one even stays for more than 10 since parole always comes in and perfectly good candidates to psychopats come out freely yet again.
For the last... 5 or 6 years we've had a tremendous judicial scandal here in Portugal, involving a pedophilia network that was dismanteled, and which had links to people high up in Political and Entertainment powers. To start with, only the one sicko who had no connections and back up got jailed, since all the others either denied it or have been absolved yet. Few were those that actually saw their freedom diminuished. Christ, PEDOPHILIA should be high up with murder. These people however, will be walking in the streets again soon, one of them has already seen his sentence diminuished.
This raises a question, as I see things:
Why sentence people to a certain time in jail, when the REAL time they spend there doesn't even make to half of what was planned?
I think this undermines judicial authority, who is already limp as it is, without having all the corruption (our biggest richess consumer) weaken it further. Again, I'm talking about Portugal, where our Prime Minister's former Ministry (The Environment, for ultimate irony), BURNED and DESTROYED all documents from the time when he was Minister, back in the 1990s. Then the #%"& comes out inbroad daylight smiling andsaying it's those "bad" journalists (he's been attacking the press as well with law suits, noticing any hints of where this is going?)
I'm sorry for the rant, but I needed to use the moment to tell foreign people what has been going on, to check whether it is me or the country that have gone mad as bats. |
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:24:02 PM | |
|
I guess the part that bothers me the most, about murder/death penalty,, Is by reason of Insanity.,...that part I hate
I watched a man confess, confess to doing a murder once, was one of the most chilling things I have ever had to see,,
I ran the video equip for the police dept in Montana, while they were interviewing him..
His excuse He was high on crack. To me thats another one, I dont care is you feel insane or do drugs.. Murder is murder in my book..
And 40 years does not mean 20 will be served... It means Prob 5-8 will be served,, Prison overcrowding is a huge problem, you would crap your pants if the stat's were released on the real information...
I live about 25 minutes from Selkirk Manitoba, were the the now Infamous Vince Lee lives..
Anyone that has not heard of him???? He stabbed be-headed and then ATE, part of Timothy Mcleans body on a grey hound bus, on July 30th, last summer.. He will serve 1 year,, why???????? you ask... because the poor baby forgot to take his Psyco Meds, and went nutz on the bus, and this kid happend to be sitting by him...
I wish the swat team would have shot him right between the eyes when he held up the head of this young man, for all onlong the highway to see, through the bus window...
as you can see this is a topic that pisses me off, |
|
| [_strat_] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:06:55 PM | |
|
Well, yeah, thats what I meant.
Now, a few months ago I would say that the idea is bad, and parole is a good idea... For those who deserve it, anyway... Till the Fritzl trial (the Austrian maniac, Im sure youve heard of him), when it was said that he may get out of jail alive... Sorry, but in that case, lock him up, throw away the key, period.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Friday, June 05, 2009 5:02:21 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | All that means is that if a person is convicted and sentenced to 40 yrs., they have to actually serve the 40 yr. sentence...otherwise, they could be out in 20.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, I see. Thanks. Now I also know what Coverdale meant when he sang that he is "Guilty of love in the first degree."
Now, if I get back to the first post on the subject, I cant say that I dont like the idea... A bit unhumanistic, I guess, but so is murdering someone in the first place.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Are there different degrees of murder?
Yes, there are varying degrees of murder, and different states define these degrees differently.
First-degree murder is the most serious form of murder. In most states, it is categorized as "deliberate" - that is, the defendant made a clear-headed decision to kill the victim; "premeditated" - the defendant actually thought about the killing before it occurred (the period for this can be very brief); and "with malice"- doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse. So if someone decides to kill a business rival who is attempting a corporate takeover, gets a gun, waits for the victim in a deserted parking garage, and shoots him, that killing would have all the elements of first-degree murder. If, on the other hand, the competitors get in a fight when the rival announces his intentions to take over the other man's business, and the second man picks up something and hits the rival with it, causing his death, that is not likely to be first-degree murder. The killer did not plan or make a decision to kill in advance.
Some states consider killings committed in specific way to be first-degree murder. Although these vary by state, they can include killing by poison, by lying in wait, and by torture. States may also presume malice if the killing is done with a deadly weapon.
Second-degree murder is killing another with malice - doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse - but without premeditation or deliberation. In other words, this means intentionally killing someone without planning to do so in advance. So, if a person becomes angry, walks over to a desk where he keeps a legal weapon for defense, takes out the gun and shoots the other, that may be second-degree murder. There was no plan or advance decision to kill, but the act of taking out the gun and shooting was intentional.
Felony murder is a killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony. Even a death that is an accident, will be considered felony murder by most states if it happens while a felony is being committed. For example, if someone becomes frightened and falls down a flight of stairs during a robbery, that would be felony murder in some states, even though the death was accidental and the robber did not mean to cause the death. If 3 people are involved in robbing a bank and one of them shoots a guard, against the wishes of the others, all 3 would be guilty of felony murder, since they willingly participated in the felony.
If the killing happens during certain felonies, determined by the state, it will be considered first-degree felony murder. The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | This might be a good time for a question... What is this thing with degrees in murders? Ive heard it lots of times, but just what is that all about?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code. If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Friday, June 05, 2009 5:02:21 PM | |
|
All that means is that if a person is convicted and sentenced to 40 yrs., they have to actually serve the 40 yr. sentence...otherwise, they could be out in 20.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, June 05, 2009 4:59:13 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, I see. Thanks. Now I also know what Coverdale meant when he sang that he is "Guilty of love in the first degree."
Now, if I get back to the first post on the subject, I cant say that I dont like the idea... A bit unhumanistic, I guess, but so is murdering someone in the first place.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Are there different degrees of murder?
Yes, there are varying degrees of murder, and different states define these degrees differently.
First-degree murder is the most serious form of murder. In most states, it is categorized as "deliberate" - that is, the defendant made a clear-headed decision to kill the victim; "premeditated" - the defendant actually thought about the killing before it occurred (the period for this can be very brief); and "with malice"- doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse. So if someone decides to kill a business rival who is attempting a corporate takeover, gets a gun, waits for the victim in a deserted parking garage, and shoots him, that killing would have all the elements of first-degree murder. If, on the other hand, the competitors get in a fight when the rival announces his intentions to take over the other man's business, and the second man picks up something and hits the rival with it, causing his death, that is not likely to be first-degree murder. The killer did not plan or make a decision to kill in advance.
Some states consider killings committed in specific way to be first-degree murder. Although these vary by state, they can include killing by poison, by lying in wait, and by torture. States may also presume malice if the killing is done with a deadly weapon.
Second-degree murder is killing another with malice - doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse - but without premeditation or deliberation. In other words, this means intentionally killing someone without planning to do so in advance. So, if a person becomes angry, walks over to a desk where he keeps a legal weapon for defense, takes out the gun and shoots the other, that may be second-degree murder. There was no plan or advance decision to kill, but the act of taking out the gun and shooting was intentional.
Felony murder is a killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony. Even a death that is an accident, will be considered felony murder by most states if it happens while a felony is being committed. For example, if someone becomes frightened and falls down a flight of stairs during a robbery, that would be felony murder in some states, even though the death was accidental and the robber did not mean to cause the death. If 3 people are involved in robbing a bank and one of them shoots a guard, against the wishes of the others, all 3 would be guilty of felony murder, since they willingly participated in the felony.
If the killing happens during certain felonies, determined by the state, it will be considered first-degree felony murder. The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | This might be a good time for a question... What is this thing with degrees in murders? Ive heard it lots of times, but just what is that all about?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code. If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, June 05, 2009 4:59:13 PM | |
|
Ah, I see. Thanks. Now I also know what Coverdale meant when he sang that he is "Guilty of love in the first degree."
Now, if I get back to the first post on the subject, I cant say that I dont like the idea... A bit unhumanistic, I guess, but so is murdering someone in the first place.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Friday, June 05, 2009 4:53:10 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Are there different degrees of murder?
Yes, there are varying degrees of murder, and different states define these degrees differently.
First-degree murder is the most serious form of murder. In most states, it is categorized as "deliberate" - that is, the defendant made a clear-headed decision to kill the victim; "premeditated" - the defendant actually thought about the killing before it occurred (the period for this can be very brief); and "with malice"- doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse. So if someone decides to kill a business rival who is attempting a corporate takeover, gets a gun, waits for the victim in a deserted parking garage, and shoots him, that killing would have all the elements of first-degree murder. If, on the other hand, the competitors get in a fight when the rival announces his intentions to take over the other man's business, and the second man picks up something and hits the rival with it, causing his death, that is not likely to be first-degree murder. The killer did not plan or make a decision to kill in advance.
Some states consider killings committed in specific way to be first-degree murder. Although these vary by state, they can include killing by poison, by lying in wait, and by torture. States may also presume malice if the killing is done with a deadly weapon.
Second-degree murder is killing another with malice - doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse - but without premeditation or deliberation. In other words, this means intentionally killing someone without planning to do so in advance. So, if a person becomes angry, walks over to a desk where he keeps a legal weapon for defense, takes out the gun and shoots the other, that may be second-degree murder. There was no plan or advance decision to kill, but the act of taking out the gun and shooting was intentional.
Felony murder is a killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony. Even a death that is an accident, will be considered felony murder by most states if it happens while a felony is being committed. For example, if someone becomes frightened and falls down a flight of stairs during a robbery, that would be felony murder in some states, even though the death was accidental and the robber did not mean to cause the death. If 3 people are involved in robbing a bank and one of them shoots a guard, against the wishes of the others, all 3 would be guilty of felony murder, since they willingly participated in the felony.
If the killing happens during certain felonies, determined by the state, it will be considered first-degree felony murder. The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | This might be a good time for a question... What is this thing with degrees in murders? Ive heard it lots of times, but just what is that all about?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code. If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. |
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Friday, June 05, 2009 4:53:10 PM | |
|
Are there different degrees of murder?
Yes, there are varying degrees of murder, and different states define these degrees differently.
First-degree murder is the most serious form of murder. In most states, it is categorized as "deliberate" - that is, the defendant made a clear-headed decision to kill the victim; "premeditated" - the defendant actually thought about the killing before it occurred (the period for this can be very brief); and "with malice"- doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse. So if someone decides to kill a business rival who is attempting a corporate takeover, gets a gun, waits for the victim in a deserted parking garage, and shoots him, that killing would have all the elements of first-degree murder. If, on the other hand, the competitors get in a fight when the rival announces his intentions to take over the other man's business, and the second man picks up something and hits the rival with it, causing his death, that is not likely to be first-degree murder. The killer did not plan or make a decision to kill in advance.
Some states consider killings committed in specific way to be first-degree murder. Although these vary by state, they can include killing by poison, by lying in wait, and by torture. States may also presume malice if the killing is done with a deadly weapon.
Second-degree murder is killing another with malice - doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse - but without premeditation or deliberation. In other words, this means intentionally killing someone without planning to do so in advance. So, if a person becomes angry, walks over to a desk where he keeps a legal weapon for defense, takes out the gun and shoots the other, that may be second-degree murder. There was no plan or advance decision to kill, but the act of taking out the gun and shooting was intentional.
Felony murder is a killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony. Even a death that is an accident, will be considered felony murder by most states if it happens while a felony is being committed. For example, if someone becomes frightened and falls down a flight of stairs during a robbery, that would be felony murder in some states, even though the death was accidental and the robber did not mean to cause the death. If 3 people are involved in robbing a bank and one of them shoots a guard, against the wishes of the others, all 3 would be guilty of felony murder, since they willingly participated in the felony.
If the killing happens during certain felonies, determined by the state, it will be considered first-degree felony murder. The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, June 05, 2009 4:45:55 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | This might be a good time for a question... What is this thing with degrees in murders? Ive heard it lots of times, but just what is that all about?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code. If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, June 05, 2009 4:45:55 PM | |
|
This might be a good time for a question... What is this thing with degrees in murders? Ive heard it lots of times, but just what is that all about?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, June 05, 2009 12:29:13 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | | The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code. If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. |
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, June 05, 2009 12:29:13 PM | |
|
| The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code. If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole. |
|
| [Head banger] Friday, June 05, 2009 12:24:02 PM | |
|
thanks, interesting.
guess that sanctions must cost more than compensation then
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:10:08 PM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | Okay My dear Friend HB... here is what I found.. it was also noted 3 canadians died on that flight,
Alleged motive
Gulf of Sidra—Libya's "territorial waters"
Libya has never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. In a letter to the United Nations it "accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials".[43]
The motive that is generally attributed to Libya can be traced back to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra, the whole of which Libya claimed as its territorial waters. First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra,[44] followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986.[45] The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the 5 April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230.[46]
CIA's alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin provided U.S. president Ronald Reagan with the justification for USAF warplanes to launch Operation El Dorado Canyon on 15 April 1986 from British bases[47][48]—the first U.S. military strikes from Britain since World War II—against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. Among dozens of Libyan military and civilian casualties, the air strikes killed Hanna Gaddafi, a baby girl Gaddafi said he adopted. To avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan.[49]
Compensation from Libya
On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family. The Libyan offer was that:
- 40% of the money would be released when United Nations sanctions, suspended in 1999, were cancelled;
- another 40% when U.S. trade sanctions were lifted; and
- the final 20% when the U.S. State Department removed Libya from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.
Jim Kreindler of New York law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, which orchestrated the settlement, said:
"These are uncharted waters. It is the first time that any of the states designated as sponsors of terrorism have offered compensation to families of terror victims."
The U.S. State Department maintained that it was not directly involved. "Some families want cash, others say it is blood money," said a State Department official.
Compensation for the families of the PA103 victims was among the steps set by the UN for lifting its sanctions against Libya. Other requirements included a formal denunciation of terrorism--which Libya said it had already made--and "accepting responsibility for the actions of its officials".[50][51]
On 15 August 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to the Lockerbie bombing.[52] The Libyan government then proceeded to pay compensation to each family of US$8 million (from which legal fees of about US$2.5 million were deducted) and, as a result, the UN cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and U.S. trade sanctions were lifted. A further US$2 million would have gone to each family had the U.S. State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen by the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining US$540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier US$2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid.[53] The United States announced resumption of full diplomatic relations with Libya after deciding to remove it from its list of countries that support terrorism on 15 May 2006.[54]
Libya's acceptance of responsibility very probably amounted to a business deal aimed at having the sanctions overturned, rather than an admission of guilt. On 24 February 2004, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated in a BBC Radio 4 interview that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that." He also said there was no evidence to link Libya with the April 1984 shooting of police officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London. Gaddafi later retracted Ghanem's comments, under pressure from Washington and London.[55]
A civil action against Libya continues on behalf of Pan Am, which went bankrupt partly as a result of the attack. The airline is seeking $4.5 billion for the loss of the aircraft and the effect on the airline's business.[56]
In the wake of the SCCRC's June 2007 decision, there have been suggestions that, if Megrahi's second appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, Libya could seek to recover the $2.16 billion compensation paid to the relatives.[57] Interviewed by French newspaper Le Figaro on 7 December 2007, Saif al-Gaddafi said that the seven Libyans convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 and the UTA Flight 772 bombings "are innocent". When asked if Libya would therefore seek reimbursement of the compensation paid to the families of the victims ($2.33 billion in total), Saif al-Gaddafi replied: "I don't know".[58]
Following discussions in London in May 2008, US and Libyan officials agreed to start negotiations to resolve all outstanding bilateral compensation claims, including those relating to UTA Flight 772, the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing and Pan Am Flight 103.[59] On 14 August 2008, a U.S.-Libya compensation deal was signed in Tripoli by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Libya's Foreign Ministry head of America affairs, Ahmed al-Fatroui. The agreement covers 26 lawsuits filed by American citizens against Libya, and three by Libyan citizens in respect of the U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986 which killed at least 40 people and injured 220.[60] In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the
- Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20% of the sum agreed in 2003;
- American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing;
- American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; and,
- Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.
As a result, President Bush has signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. [61] U.S. State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the move a "laudable milestone ... clearing the way for a continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership."[62]
In an interview shown in BBC Two's The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie[63] on 31 August 2008, Saif al-Gaddafi said that Libya had admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing simply to get trade sanctions removed. He went on to describe the families of the Lockerbie victims as very greedy: "They were asking for more money and more money and more money".[64]
[edit] Contingency fees for lawyers
On 5 December 2003, Jim Kreindler revealed that his Park Avenue law firm would receive an initial contingency fee of around US$1 million from each of the 128 American families Kreindler represents. The firm's fees could exceed US$300 million eventually. Kreindler argued that the fees were justified, since "Over the past seven years we have had a dedicated team working tirelessly on this and we deserve the contingency fee we have worked so hard for, and I think we have provided the relatives with value for money."[citation needed]
Another top legal firm in the U.S., Speiser Krause, which represented 60 relatives, of whom half were UK families, concluded contingency deals securing them fees of between 28 and 35% of individual settlements. Frank Granito of Speiser Krause noted that "the rewards in the U.S. are more substantial than anywhere else in the world but nobody has questioned the fee whilst the work has been going on, it is only now as we approach a resolution when the criticism comes your way."[citation needed]
In March 2009, it was announced that U.S. lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, received fees of $2 million for the work it did from 2006 through 2008 helping the PA103 relatives obtain payment by Libya of the final $2 million compensation (out of a total of $10 million) that was due to each family.[65]
| | | Head banger wrote: | | your right actualy, I forgot about that, that one wasnt canadian anyway. guess the law wouldnt have mattered. would have to involve canada, take off or plot here.
lybia agreed to pay, hum. wonder if they will. why would they?
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions.. IDK??
But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago.. Over Scotland.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so... new topic
the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism. ok, fair enough. they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations. WTF? so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up??? what are the odds of colection??? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:10:08 PM | |
|
Okay My dear Friend HB... here is what I found.. it was also noted 3 canadians died on that flight,
Alleged motive
Gulf of Sidra—Libya's "territorial waters"
Libya has never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. In a letter to the United Nations it "accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials".[43]
The motive that is generally attributed to Libya can be traced back to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra, the whole of which Libya claimed as its territorial waters. First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra,[44] followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986.[45] The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the 5 April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230.[46]
CIA's alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin provided U.S. president Ronald Reagan with the justification for USAF warplanes to launch Operation El Dorado Canyon on 15 April 1986 from British bases[47][48]—the first U.S. military strikes from Britain since World War II—against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. Among dozens of Libyan military and civilian casualties, the air strikes killed Hanna Gaddafi, a baby girl Gaddafi said he adopted. To avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan.[49]
Compensation from Libya
On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family. The Libyan offer was that:
- 40% of the money would be released when United Nations sanctions, suspended in 1999, were cancelled;
- another 40% when U.S. trade sanctions were lifted; and
- the final 20% when the U.S. State Department removed Libya from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.
Jim Kreindler of New York law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, which orchestrated the settlement, said:
"These are uncharted waters. It is the first time that any of the states designated as sponsors of terrorism have offered compensation to families of terror victims."
The U.S. State Department maintained that it was not directly involved. "Some families want cash, others say it is blood money," said a State Department official.
Compensation for the families of the PA103 victims was among the steps set by the UN for lifting its sanctions against Libya. Other requirements included a formal denunciation of terrorism--which Libya said it had already made--and "accepting responsibility for the actions of its officials".[50][51]
On 15 August 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to the Lockerbie bombing.[52] The Libyan government then proceeded to pay compensation to each family of US$8 million (from which legal fees of about US$2.5 million were deducted) and, as a result, the UN cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and U.S. trade sanctions were lifted. A further US$2 million would have gone to each family had the U.S. State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen by the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining US$540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier US$2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid.[53] The United States announced resumption of full diplomatic relations with Libya after deciding to remove it from its list of countries that support terrorism on 15 May 2006.[54]
Libya's acceptance of responsibility very probably amounted to a business deal aimed at having the sanctions overturned, rather than an admission of guilt. On 24 February 2004, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated in a BBC Radio 4 interview that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that." He also said there was no evidence to link Libya with the April 1984 shooting of police officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London. Gaddafi later retracted Ghanem's comments, under pressure from Washington and London.[55]
A civil action against Libya continues on behalf of Pan Am, which went bankrupt partly as a result of the attack. The airline is seeking $4.5 billion for the loss of the aircraft and the effect on the airline's business.[56]
In the wake of the SCCRC's June 2007 decision, there have been suggestions that, if Megrahi's second appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, Libya could seek to recover the $2.16 billion compensation paid to the relatives.[57] Interviewed by French newspaper Le Figaro on 7 December 2007, Saif al-Gaddafi said that the seven Libyans convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 and the UTA Flight 772 bombings "are innocent". When asked if Libya would therefore seek reimbursement of the compensation paid to the families of the victims ($2.33 billion in total), Saif al-Gaddafi replied: "I don't know".[58]
Following discussions in London in May 2008, US and Libyan officials agreed to start negotiations to resolve all outstanding bilateral compensation claims, including those relating to UTA Flight 772, the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing and Pan Am Flight 103.[59] On 14 August 2008, a U.S.-Libya compensation deal was signed in Tripoli by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Libya's Foreign Ministry head of America affairs, Ahmed al-Fatroui. The agreement covers 26 lawsuits filed by American citizens against Libya, and three by Libyan citizens in respect of the U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986 which killed at least 40 people and injured 220.[60] In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the
- Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20% of the sum agreed in 2003;
- American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing;
- American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; and,
- Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.
As a result, President Bush has signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. [61] U.S. State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the move a "laudable milestone ... clearing the way for a continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership."[62]
In an interview shown in BBC Two's The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie[63] on 31 August 2008, Saif al-Gaddafi said that Libya had admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing simply to get trade sanctions removed. He went on to describe the families of the Lockerbie victims as very greedy: "They were asking for more money and more money and more money".[64]
[edit] Contingency fees for lawyers
On 5 December 2003, Jim Kreindler revealed that his Park Avenue law firm would receive an initial contingency fee of around US$1 million from each of the 128 American families Kreindler represents. The firm's fees could exceed US$300 million eventually. Kreindler argued that the fees were justified, since "Over the past seven years we have had a dedicated team working tirelessly on this and we deserve the contingency fee we have worked so hard for, and I think we have provided the relatives with value for money."[citation needed]
Another top legal firm in the U.S., Speiser Krause, which represented 60 relatives, of whom half were UK families, concluded contingency deals securing them fees of between 28 and 35% of individual settlements. Frank Granito of Speiser Krause noted that "the rewards in the U.S. are more substantial than anywhere else in the world but nobody has questioned the fee whilst the work has been going on, it is only now as we approach a resolution when the criticism comes your way."[citation needed]
In March 2009, it was announced that U.S. lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, received fees of $2 million for the work it did from 2006 through 2008 helping the PA103 relatives obtain payment by Libya of the final $2 million compensation (out of a total of $10 million) that was due to each family.[65]
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:17:28 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | your right actualy, I forgot about that, that one wasnt canadian anyway. guess the law wouldnt have mattered. would have to involve canada, take off or plot here.
lybia agreed to pay, hum. wonder if they will. why would they?
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions.. IDK??
But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago.. Over Scotland.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so... new topic
the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism. ok, fair enough. they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations. WTF? so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up??? what are the odds of colection??? |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:38:51 AM | |
|
I think they already payed... Or will. Moamer is trying to get on somebodies good side.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:17:28 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | your right actualy, I forgot about that, that one wasnt canadian anyway. guess the law wouldnt have mattered. would have to involve canada, take off or plot here.
lybia agreed to pay, hum. wonder if they will. why would they?
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions.. IDK??
But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago.. Over Scotland.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so... new topic
the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism. ok, fair enough. they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations. WTF? so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up??? what are the odds of colection??? |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:17:28 AM | |
|
your right actualy, I forgot about that, that one wasnt canadian anyway. guess the law wouldnt have mattered. would have to involve canada, take off or plot here.
lybia agreed to pay, hum. wonder if they will. why would they?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:14:56 AM)| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions.. IDK??
But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago.. Over Scotland.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so... new topic
the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism. ok, fair enough. they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations. WTF? so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up??? what are the odds of colection??? |
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:14:56 AM | |
|
I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions.. IDK??
But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago.. Over Scotland.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:12:34 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | so... new topic
the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism. ok, fair enough. they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations. WTF? so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up??? what are the odds of colection??? |
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:12:34 AM | |
|
so... new topic
the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism. ok, fair enough. they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations. WTF? so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up??? what are the odds of colection??? |
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:17:32 PM | |
|
Well, that would depend on the country. Big countries (geographicaly speaking) would have less problems with banning stuff. We, on the other hand... The nearest border is less than an hours drive away, and there I can buy all the tobbaco or booze that I could ever wish.
What I have a problem with, is if they limit things that are only hurting me. Ok, when you drive, you have to obey the rules. Not so much because of yourself, but because of others in the traffic. Same would go to drunk driving I guess. But drinking and NOT driving, smoking, eating greasy food... Thats something else.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:11:36 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | beer here has way more tax. I am fine with the tax on the harmfull things, but it the govt is going to tell you whats bad for you, why not ban it? trafic laws, you have to wear a helmet on a bike, all keeping people safe, then here this is unsafe, pay more???? makes no sense. then again most of what govts do makes no sense.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | On the first point I seriously doubt that. And I am opposed to all the extra taxes on tobbaco. If tobbaco, why not anything risky? A beer has as much tax on it as orange juice. Logic? Search me.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | on your first point, most studies here say that the tax on cigs doesnt pay all the cost of extra health care
on point 2, your right, and its oneof the dumbest laws writen that way. wonder what would happen if a 17 year old was smoking in a car alone. its against the law to smoke in a car with a minor, but ok for that minor to smoke? probably a ticket in that.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:11:36 PM | |
|
beer here has way more tax. I am fine with the tax on the harmfull things, but it the govt is going to tell you whats bad for you, why not ban it? trafic laws, you have to wear a helmet on a bike, all keeping people safe, then here this is unsafe, pay more???? makes no sense. then again most of what govts do makes no sense.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:05:03 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | On the first point I seriously doubt that. And I am opposed to all the extra taxes on tobbaco. If tobbaco, why not anything risky? A beer has as much tax on it as orange juice. Logic? Search me.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | on your first point, most studies here say that the tax on cigs doesnt pay all the cost of extra health care
on point 2, your right, and its oneof the dumbest laws writen that way. wonder what would happen if a 17 year old was smoking in a car alone. its against the law to smoke in a car with a minor, but ok for that minor to smoke? probably a ticket in that.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:07:28 PM | |
|
so is a cafe like a pub?
same here, you cant buy under 18, but you can smoke. unlike booze, you cant buy or consume under 18
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Ellieke from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50:34 AM)| | | Ellieke wrote: | | That's heavy !!! here in Belgium we can't smoke inside any public place or restaurant and they want to forbid it in a cafe aswell but that law isn't aproved yet. We do pay a lot of taxes on smokes but aparently it doesn't stop people from smoking. We can't buy smokes under the age of 18, but if somebody else buys them and you smoke them nobody will panic.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:06:58 PM | |
|
We cant either... Shame. It was so nice, a coffee and a smoke... But we will live, I guess.
I just wish that they would stop at that. Ok, you got us out of closed public spaces. No leave us alone! But no... They have to go and raise the prices. All the time!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Ellieke from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50:34 AM)| | | Ellieke wrote: | | That's heavy !!! here in Belgium we can't smoke inside any public place or restaurant and they want to forbid it in a cafe aswell but that law isn't aproved yet. We do pay a lot of taxes on smokes but aparently it doesn't stop people from smoking. We can't buy smokes under the age of 18, but if somebody else buys them and you smoke them nobody will panic.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:05:03 PM | |
|
On the first point I seriously doubt that. And I am opposed to all the extra taxes on tobbaco. If tobbaco, why not anything risky? A beer has as much tax on it as orange juice. Logic? Search me.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50:57 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | on your first point, most studies here say that the tax on cigs doesnt pay all the cost of extra health care
on point 2, your right, and its oneof the dumbest laws writen that way. wonder what would happen if a 17 year old was smoking in a car alone. its against the law to smoke in a car with a minor, but ok for that minor to smoke? probably a ticket in that.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50:57 AM | |
|
on your first point, most studies here say that the tax on cigs doesnt pay all the cost of extra health care
on point 2, your right, and its oneof the dumbest laws writen that way. wonder what would happen if a 17 year old was smoking in a car alone. its against the law to smoke in a car with a minor, but ok for that minor to smoke? probably a ticket in that.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:43:03 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
