Subject:
|
Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:38:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
454 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
I see no reason for cable TV or conjugal visits.
|
HA, don’t let the Libs hear you say that;-)
| |
Life in prison sounds about
right though. (I beleive you asked this already)
|
But herein lies the rub. Does the punishment fit the crime? A 3 time drug
abuser can get about the same length sentence (depending upon the ages of the
criminals-- hey, life is only so long). Doesn’t seem just to me.
|
You’re right, it’s not. A 3 time drug “abuser” hasn’t necessarily committed any
actual crime at all, so shouldn’t be in jail for his/her “crime”. I’m glad to
see you’ve decided to come to the side of the angels and oppose the war on
drugs, at last.
| |
| |
Note, again, my assertion
that prisons need to be structured so that they do not cost the state money,
but rather, that they generate income that is given to the victims or their
families.
|
Restitution. I’m all for it. But how can you force a prisoner to work?
|
No work, no food. His/her choice.
| |
(snip)
| |
| |
For the sake of the discussion, yes.
|
Sorry, no, you do not get to assume that.
|
Some things are simply not knowable. If a jury finds him guilty, I trust he
is guilty.
|
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, given the current evidence available, yes. But not
necessarily ACTUALLY guilty. New evidence may come to light. Don’t be so
CERTAIN, it makes you sound smug.
| |
| |
The law requires beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, which is good
enough for me, as long as we are not talking about the death penalty. The
death penalty, in my view, requires certainty. Since we can’t have that, no
dice.
|
What about DNA testing? Doesn’t get more certain than that.
|
DNA testing! You and other bandy it about so cavalierly, as if it were some sort
of magic silver bullet that solves everything.
First, the current state of the art is not perfect. What is established is a
probabilistic fit, not a certainty. the probability is high but not CERTAIN that
blood/semen/tissue/whatever belongs to a certain person.(1)
Second, what it does is establish a link, but it does in and of itself not prove
anything. DNA testing can show that there is a high probability that the semen
found on the dress belongs to the president but it cannot prove rape, in and of
itself. DNA testing can show that there is a high probability that the blood on
the knife belongs to the football star, but it cannot prove murder, in and of
itself. That requires more than just DNA testing. You must, as a prosecutor,
show method, and you must show opportunity, not just consanguinuity.
| |
Further, since
the truth is what justice is all about, I would look to science to produce a
method of truth extraction to replace the criminal justice system.
|
You’ve been watching too much TV, or Tom Cruise movies, or something.
| |
There is
an eyewitness to every crime--
|
But not necessarily an accurate one, even if that witness wanted to tell the
truth with all their heart and soul.
| |
even if it means altering the 5th amendment.
The notion that one is innocent until proven guilty is pretty flawed.
|
Fortunately, that’s not the notion, the notion is that one is PRESUMED innocent,
until proven guilty. The alternative is the Napoleonic system in which one has
to prove innocence. No thank you.
| |
In the
meta sense, you are guilty the second you violate someone’s rights, it’s just
that society either doesn’t know about it or has the evidence to prove it.
If OJ confesses tomorrow, is he still not-guilty? According to the law, yes.
That is messed up.
|
No, it is not messed up. The principle of no double jepoardy has stood us well.
Better that 10 guilty go free by mistake than that 1 innocent be incarcerated by
mistake.
You seem to want to repeal vast swaths of the constitution here. I on the other
hand, seek a return to the constitution and the principles of our nation, many
of which have been abrogated of late. If I am correct in my assessment, we may
be implacable enemies, philosophically. Regrettably.
| |
| |
Any TV is too much but I speak from much more accurate experience.
|
Agreed, and a tangent besides.
|
No, my accurate experience, which I am not going to go into here, is not at all
tangential.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Probably not but do you know for certain?
|
What’s with this certainty test? I think we all know that there are only
two things certain in life;-)
|
Well, actually, only 1.
|
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Find me a Democratic candidate
for president who is willing to support the Fair Tax idea and abolish the IRS
and I’ll gladly vote for him!
|
Oh, you thought I was talking about taxes! I was talking about death. :-) Come
to think of it, neither is certain any more.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Therefore I oppose the death penalty even in this case.
|
Bad reason to oppose it in my view. So a few innocents are executed
injustly (a very few, BTW).
|
Got a cite for that? One is too many.
| |
Compare that to the number of innocents who are
murdered by murderers who get off on a technicality.
|
Better that 10 guilty go free than that one innocent be wrongly punished.
|
Well I say better 1 get wrongly punished than one innocent murdered by 10
guilty man freed.
|
That doesn’t parse right. But if it says what I think it might say it is just
wrong. Very wrong.
| |
| |
| |
| |
It is when the citizens decide to mete out JUSTICE on their own that
things go awry.
|
Why, because our present system functions so well on its own?
|
Who said anything about our present system functioning well?
|
Then what’s your point?
|
That improvements are possible but I’d prefer to keep the parts that do work
well (presumption of innocence, for example) rather than dump them and embrace
the parts that don’t work well (beating confessions out of suspects, for
example)
| |
Things go awry in our justice system all the time.
Citizens only decide to mete out JUSTICE when they feel that the justice
system is impotent.
|
And that is wrong. Punishment is properly the role of the state. Apprehension
assistance, I support, necktie parties, I do not. (don’t confuse firing back at
a house invader wtih carrying out a just punishment)
++Lar
1 - and you completely forget the possibility of evil twins!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
| (...) money, (...) their (...) work? (...) Hmm, I might still let them have slop... I would offer a variety of incentives. I don't see a problem with prisoners who are on their way to rehabilitation having access to TV and such. In fact, if they are (...) (20 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
| (...) HA, don't let the Libs hear you say that;-) (...) But herein lies the rub. Does the punishment fit the crime? A 3 time drug abuser can get about the same length sentence (depending upon the ages of the criminals-- hey, life is only so long). (...) (20 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
