NationStates Jolt Archive

Oppose Expansion of the Death Penalty under the PATRIOT Act


Despite being stymied in its efforts to push a successor to the controversial USA Patriot Act through Congress, the Bush Administration is urging the U.S. House to pass a piece of this legislation that would dramatically expand the federal death penalty, including expansion based on the PATRIOT Act's infamous "domestic terrorism" provisions.

Not only would this proposed legislation create 23 new death penalties in one stroke, the bill also creates an unprecedented “catch-all” death penalty for any crime that meets the PATRIOT Act’s overbroad definition of terrorism.

Congress needs to re-examine the PATRIOT Act, not increase its power by dramatically expanding the death penalty.

Take Action! Urge Congress to oppose expansion of the death penalty under the provisions of the infamous PATRIOT Act.

Click here for more information and to send a free fax to your Representative:
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=15502&c=24

There's no way in h*ll i'm letting Patriot II pass!!! It also allows the gov't to sample your DNA sans permission, expanded wiretaps, and a bunch of other *sarcasm* great */sarcasm* things

You guys just keep on enjoying all that wonderful freedom you have in the USA, that we don't get any of in Europe.

Oppose Expansion of the Death Penalty under the PATRIOT Act


Despite being stymied in its efforts to push a successor to the controversial USA Patriot Act through Congress, the Bush Administration is urging the U.S. House to pass a piece of this legislation that would dramatically expand the federal death penalty, including expansion based on the PATRIOT Act's infamous "domestic terrorism" provisions.

Not only would this proposed legislation create 23 new death penalties in one stroke, the bill also creates an unprecedented “catch-all” death penalty for any crime that meets the PATRIOT Act’s overbroad definition of terrorism.

Congress needs to re-examine the PATRIOT Act, not increase its power by dramatically expanding the death penalty.

Take Action! Urge Congress to oppose expansion of the death penalty under the provisions of the infamous PATRIOT Act.

Click here for more information and to send a free fax to your Representative:
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=15502&c=24

THe death penalty is the least of my worries under the PATRIOT Act. It's violations of due process are FAR more severe.

It's much worse to punish the innocent than to kill the guilty.

Thank´s God not!!

Come on, (respectfully) get those fanatic neocons (to be read in French) out of the White House. Absurd, buy dangerous.

(P.D: Let the rest of the World vote in U.S. elections, for our sake)

You guys just keep on enjoying all that wonderful freedom you have in the USA, that we don't get any of in Europe.
:lol:

There's no way in h*ll i'm letting Patriot II pass!!! It also allows the gov't to sample your DNA sans permission, expanded wiretaps, and a bunch of other *sarcasm* great */sarcasm* things

States already have laws allowing the gathering of DNA evidence without permission, and the Supreme Court has upheld them.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

a-f***ing-men!

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

I'd rather see 99 murderers killed than see 99 murderers alive anyday. Sadly, we must accept the fact that some innocents will die

and yes, this is overused.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

So, would it be better to imprison innocents for the rest of thier lives? Or, do you think that abolishing the death penalty would make the justice system infallible? Not only is your statement over-used, it also doesn't address the problem you seem to have with the justice system.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

So, would it be better to imprison innocents for the rest of thier lives? Or, do you think that abolishing the death penalty would make the justice system infallible? Not only is your statement over-used, it also doesn't address the problem you seem to have with the justice system.

oh nice. I never thought of that.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

So, would it be better to imprison innocents for the rest of thier lives? Or, do you think that abolishing the death penalty would make the justice system infallible? Not only is your statement over-used, it also doesn't address the problem you seem to have with the justice system.

If innocent men are just imprisoned, then they can be released if it is discovered later on that they are in fact innocent. If an innocent man is executed, then they can't be brought back to life if it is discovered later that they were innocent. Ideally, the judicial system wouldn't convict innocent men, but that's a pipe dream. However, I think it would be better not to have the death penalty so that we assure that we do not execute an innocent man. Is that innocent man's life really worth sending a message to other criminals?

So, would it be better to imprison innocents for the rest of thier lives? Or, do you think that abolishing the death penalty would make the justice system infallible? Not only is your statement over-used, it also doesn't address the problem you seem to have with the justice system.

At the risk of stating the obvious: if evidence which shows someone to be innocent comes to light after their execution, all you can do is send an apology to their family. If you have jailed them, then you can release them and provide some kind of compensation to help them get back on their feet.
In both cases, investigations should begin to find the real culprit.

*sigh*

"you should have had tighter security before 9/11!" "You need to lower security and butt out of our lives!"

"You need to kill these terrorists!" "Don't kill them!"

"You need to bomb them!" "Don't bomb them!!"

Will you wackos make up your bush-hating minds?

*sigh*

"you should have had tighter security before 9/11!" "You need to lower security and butt out of our lives!"

"You need to kill these terrorists!" "Don't kill them!"

"You need to bomb them!" "Don't bomb them!!"

Will you wackos make up your bush-hating minds?
how does the death penalty make america safer. Especially for people who "don't fear death."

*sigh*

"you should have had tighter security before 9/11!" "You need to lower security and butt out of our lives!"

"You need to kill these terrorists!" "Don't kill them!"

"You need to bomb them!" "Don't bomb them!!"

Will you wackos make up your bush-hating minds?

Eh, I take that back. I forgot what this thread was originally about....

thats it, I'm moving to Europe when I can.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

So, would it be better to imprison innocents for the rest of thier lives? Or, do you think that abolishing the death penalty would make the justice system infallible? Not only is your statement over-used, it also doesn't address the problem you seem to have with the justice system.

If innocent men are just imprisoned, then they can be released if it is discovered later on that they are in fact innocent. If an innocent man is executed, then they can't be brought back to life if it is discovered later that they were innocent. Ideally, the judicial system wouldn't convict innocent men, but that's a pipe dream. However, I think it would be better not to have the death penalty so that we assure that we do not execute an innocent man. Is that innocent man's life really worth sending a message to other criminals?

There are appeals and further investigations before executions. There is a mandated time between conviction and execution. What do you propose be done about innocent people convicted and set free? Are you going to give them thier lives, reputations and time back? After spending thier lives among the worst that society has to offer are they fit to simply be released? Any way that look at it an innocent person in prison is a travesty. But, should that mean that the guilty shouldn't get the punishment that they deserve?

thats it, I'm moving to Europe when I can.

Only the guilty have to fear

There are appeals and further investigations before executions. There is a mandated time between conviction and execution. What do you propose be done about innocent people convicted and set free? Are you going to give them thier lives, reputations and time back? After spending thier lives among the worst that society has to offer are they fit to simply be released? Any way that look at it an innocent person in prison is a travesty. But, should that mean that the guilty shouldn't get the punishment that they deserve?

You're avoiding my question. Is it really that important to you that convicted criminals be killed that you'd risk executing a man who committed absolutely no crime? I don't see why executing criminals is so meaningful that it is acceptable for an innocent man to die in the confusion. Why do we need to kill criminals?

The death penalty is the rightful punishment for a criminal who has deserved what they got coming.

Now hey. It's better than what the EU had 150 years ago where they hung a man for stealing corn.

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.

I know this has been beaten to death, but with the death penalty, you run the risk of executing an innocent man. As flawless as our judicial system is, it is not 100% accurate. You run that risk. Is it better that one innocent man is executed so 99 guilty men can die also, or is it better for 99 guilty men to live so that one innocent man can also live?

I'd rather see 99 murderers killed than see 99 murderers alive anyday. Sadly, we must accept the fact that some innocents will die

and yes, this is overused.
But this is not:
As long as we still have a death penalty they'll continue making movies like The Life of David Gale. And can you live with that on your shoulders?

As for the issue. I'm totally against the death penalty- and as it is, I've barely got my toe still in the proverbial "door" of the US (in my mind at least). Maybe it's just an effect of being a college student, but I'm just so freaked out by so many of our policies...something like that could definitely be the straw that breaks my back... :(

But, should that mean that the guilty shouldn't get the punishment that they deserve?

Your argument appears to be saying that in order to protect the innocent from being killed it is necessary that we might have to kill some of them, no?

thats it, I'm moving to Europe when I can.

Only the guilty have to fear

you mean only the innocent who do want the government to start tapping phone lines or checking emails. You know every time you use the word "bomb" "gun" or "explosion" in an email, you get flagged as a potential terrorist. No, I want to go to Europe to escape what is becoming a far too authoritatrian U.S. government.

--Ever read 1984 by George Orwell. If you have, yeah, thats what I want to avoid.

thats it, I'm moving to Europe when I can.

Only the guilty have to fear
That's just not true, and I think that's the point the rest of us are trying to make. Lower the standard of living in prisons so the guilty men wish they were dead- but at least that one innocent man will still have a chance.
There's no second chance after death.

The death penalty is the rightful punishment for a criminal who has deserved what they got coming.
Circular argument anyone? "It is rightful because he deserved it"
Why did he deserve it? "Because it is rightful".

Now hey. It's better than what the EU had 150 years ago where they hung a man for stealing corn.

If you believe that the European Union existed 150 years ago you really, really need to widen your horizons and do some research.

You're avoiding my question. Is it really that important to you that convicted criminals be killed that you'd risk executing a man who committed absolutely no crime? I don't see why executing criminals is so meaningful that it is acceptable for an innocent man to die in the confusion. Why do we need to kill criminals?

Why do we need to kill criminals? Let's see. Maybe because some of them deserve it. Yes, I think that it is worth an occasional mistake to rid ourselves of the very worst among us. Justice seems to no longer be about punishing criminals in a way that fits thier crimes, it seems to be about politics. And to beat you to your next question, yes. Yes, I would carry out the executions.

You're avoiding my question. Is it really that important to you that convicted criminals be killed that you'd risk executing a man who committed absolutely no crime? I don't see why executing criminals is so meaningful that it is acceptable for an innocent man to die in the confusion. Why do we need to kill criminals?

Why do we need to kill criminals? Let's see. Maybe because some of them deserve it. Yes, I think that it is worth an occasional mistake to rid ourselves of the very worst among us. Justice seems to no longer be about punishing criminals in a way that fits thier crimes, it seems to be about politics. And to beat you to your next question, yes. Yes, I would carry out the executions.

Well, that wasn't going to be my next question, but thanks for sharing. I was going to ask you, why do criminals deserve to be killed? Why can't we just go back to the good old days of hard labor. I think that 25 years mining stone would deter alot of would be criminals. It doesn't seem fair to execute someone for committing murder. "Killing is wrong, and to teach you your lesson, we're going to kill you." I never much cared for Hammurabi.

The death penalty is the rightful punishment for a criminal who has deserved what they got coming.
Circular argument anyone? "It is rightful because he deserved it"
Why did he deserve it? "Because it is rightful".

Now hey. It's better than what the EU had 150 years ago where they hung a man for stealing corn.

If you believe that the European Union existed 150 years ago you really, really need to widen your horizons and do some research.

1. He deserved it because he had commited a terrible crime worthy of being killed for it.

2. I meant EU in general. Britain, Spain, France, all the lot.

--Ever read 1984 by George Orwell. If you have, yeah, thats what I want to avoid.

Yes, because Bush is oh-so-similar to Stalin and Lenin

(hint for the slow-Orwell was a socialist, and the point of Animal Farm and 1984 was to warn other socialists and everyone else of the dangers of the Soviet Union and their "communism")

--Ever read 1984 by George Orwell. If you have, yeah, thats what I want to avoid.

Yes, because Bush is oh-so-similar to Stalin and Lenin

(hint for the slow-Orwell was a socialist, and the point of Animal Farm and 1984 was to warn other socialists and everyone else of the dangers of the Soviet Union and their "communism")

Thanks for the hint. You know that you can apply the book to any sort of authoritarian-government-masquerading-as-another-form-of-government, right? A piece of literature can mean more than just its original intention.

You're avoiding my question. Is it really that important to you that convicted criminals be killed that you'd risk executing a man who committed absolutely no crime? I don't see why executing criminals is so meaningful that it is acceptable for an innocent man to die in the confusion. Why do we need to kill criminals?

Why do we need to kill criminals? Let's see. Maybe because some of them deserve it. Yes, I think that it is worth an occasional mistake to rid ourselves of the very worst among us. Justice seems to no longer be about punishing criminals in a way that fits thier crimes, it seems to be about politics. And to beat you to your next question, yes. Yes, I would carry out the executions.
Would you still think that if you were the mistake?

You're avoiding my question. Is it really that important to you that convicted criminals be killed that you'd risk executing a man who committed absolutely no crime? I don't see why executing criminals is so meaningful that it is acceptable for an innocent man to die in the confusion. Why do we need to kill criminals?

Why do we need to kill criminals? Let's see. Maybe because some of them deserve it. Yes, I think that it is worth an occasional mistake to rid ourselves of the very worst among us. Justice seems to no longer be about punishing criminals in a way that fits thier crimes, it seems to be about politics. And to beat you to your next question, yes. Yes, I would carry out the executions.
Would you still think that if you were the mistake?

This is WAY to friggin overused. Do you honestly think that someone who devotes their time to NS would be seen in the electric chair? If so, he's likely (edit) GUILTY!

Well, that wasn't going to be my next question, but thanks for sharing. I was going to ask you, why do criminals deserve to be killed? Why can't we just go back to the good old days of hard labor. I think that 25 years mining stone would deter alot of would be criminals.
Oooh, I like that idea. I've always thought that our prisons should be run more like businesses- except without all those pesky regulations. And maybe that way if someone ends up being guilty, we can try to make up for it with monetary compensation. As it is, they don't even get an apology- especially if they're dead.

Do you honestly think that someone who devotes their time to NS would be seen in the electric chair? If so, he's likely innocent.

It wouldn't really swing a case before a court would it?: "I can't prove that I didn't kill him, but I devote my time to NS, so I'm likely innocent."

You're avoiding my question. Is it really that important to you that convicted criminals be killed that you'd risk executing a man who committed absolutely no crime? I don't see why executing criminals is so meaningful that it is acceptable for an innocent man to die in the confusion. Why do we need to kill criminals?

Why do we need to kill criminals? Let's see. Maybe because some of them deserve it. Yes, I think that it is worth an occasional mistake to rid ourselves of the very worst among us. Justice seems to no longer be about punishing criminals in a way that fits thier crimes, it seems to be about politics. And to beat you to your next question, yes. Yes, I would carry out the executions.
Would you still think that if you were the mistake?

This is WAY to friggin overused. Do you honestly think that someone who devotes their time to NS would be seen in the electric chair? If so, he's likely innocent.
Well, damn, thanks for making my point for me? :roll:

Not that I see the connection between nationstates and not committing crimes. None of the people here download illegally? How long til that's punishable by death? (ok, slight exaggeration)

EDIT: ok, so you're no longer making my point, but now I don't see why someone on NS would be more likely to be guilty?

Well, that wasn't going to be my next question, but thanks for sharing. I was going to ask you, why do criminals deserve to be killed? Why can't we just go back to the good old days of hard labor. I think that 25 years mining stone would deter alot of would be criminals. It doesn't seem fair to execute someone for committing murder. "Killing is wrong, and to teach you your lesson, we're going to kill you." I never much cared for Hammurabi.

Hard labor? The good old days? I thought that people were against exploitation and it seems to be the concensus that the good old days weren't that good. Mining stone might deter criminals, but I don't think it works as well as killing them. Killing isn't always wrong. Have you ever been imprisoned? After a seemingly endless string of days behind the same bars even breaking rocks would be a relief.

Whoops. wait. cross out innocent and put "guilty" in my last post

Well, that wasn't going to be my next question, but thanks for sharing. I was going to ask you, why do criminals deserve to be killed? Why can't we just go back to the good old days of hard labor. I think that 25 years mining stone would deter alot of would be criminals. It doesn't seem fair to execute someone for committing murder. "Killing is wrong, and to teach you your lesson, we're going to kill you." I never much cared for Hammurabi.

Hard labor? The good old days? I thought that people were against exploitation and it seems to be the concensus that the good old days weren't that good. Mining stone might deter criminals, but I don't think it works as well as killing them. Killing isn't always wrong. Have you ever been imprisoned? After a seemingly endless string of days behind the same bars even breaking rocks would be a relief.

I still don't see the moral justification for killing a killer. And you still haven't answered my question as to whether the life of an innocent man is worth keeping the deterrent in place.

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

I would be. If my family were murdered, I'd much rather the murderer serve 50 years mining stone or some other menial, physically demanding task until his body and mind were frail and broken.

Well, that wasn't going to be my next question, but thanks for sharing. I was going to ask you, why do criminals deserve to be killed? Why can't we just go back to the good old days of hard labor. I think that 25 years mining stone would deter alot of would be criminals. It doesn't seem fair to execute someone for committing murder. "Killing is wrong, and to teach you your lesson, we're going to kill you." I never much cared for Hammurabi.

Hard labor? The good old days? I thought that people were against exploitation and it seems to be the concensus that the good old days weren't that good. Mining stone might deter criminals, but I don't think it works as well as killing them. Killing isn't always wrong. Have you ever been imprisoned? After a seemingly endless string of days behind the same bars even breaking rocks would be a relief.

I still don't see the moral justification for killing a killer. And you still haven't answered my question as to whether the life of an innocent man is worth keeping the deterrent in place.

Oh, that's the question that you think I've been avoiding. I did answer it in another post. Yes, I think so. Maybe I'm no better than killers, but I've seen them, up close, and I think the rest of us are well rid of them.

DP.

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

I would be. If my family were murdered, I'd much rather the murderer serve 50 years mining stone or some other menial, physically demanding task until his body and mind were frail and broken.

You see murders don't just reform in prison. They continue to kill and victimise people and thier families. Prison does noy prevent one from killing, it just limits thier options as to who they kill.

A BILL
To increase criminal penalties relating to terrorist murders, deny Federal benefits to terrorists, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST MURDERS.

(a) Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the chapter analysis, by inserting at the end the following:

`2339D. Terrorist offenses resulting in death.';

and

(2) by inserting at the end the following:

`Sec. 2339D. Terrorist offenses resulting in death

`(a) A person who, in the course of committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

`(b) As used in this section, `terrorist offense' means--

`(1) international or domestic terrorism as defined in section 2331;

`(2) a Federal crime of terrorism as defined in section 2332b(g);

`(3) an offense under this chapter, section 175, 175b, 229, or 831, or section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or

`(4) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph (10), (2), or (3).'.

(b) Section 3592(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `section 2339D (terrorist offenses resulting in death),' after `destruction),'.

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF FEDERAL BENEFITS TO TERRORISTS.

Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the chapter analysis, by adding at the end the following:

`2339E. Denial of federal benefits to terrorists.';

and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 2339E. Denial of federal benefits to terrorists

`(a) IN GENERAL- Any individual who is convicted of a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)(5)) shall, as provided by the court on motion of the government, be ineligible for any or all Federal benefits for any term of years or for life.

`(b) DEFINITION- As used in this section, `Federal benefit' has the meaning given that term in section 421(d) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862(d)).'.


There's already a federal death penalty for murder. This just defines a different type of murder.

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

I would be. If my family were murdered, I'd much rather the murderer serve 50 years mining stone or some other menial, physically demanding task until his body and mind were frail and broken.
ditto
Now to answer mine?

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

I would be. If my family were murdered, I'd much rather the murderer serve 50 years mining stone or some other menial, physically demanding task until his body and mind were frail and broken.

You see murders don't just reform in prison. They continue to kill and victimise people and thier families. Prison does noy prevent one from killing, it just limits thier options as to who they kill.

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

I would be. If my family were murdered, I'd much rather the murderer serve 50 years mining stone or some other menial, physically demanding task until his body and mind were frail and broken.

You see murders don't just reform in prison. They continue to kill and victimise people and thier families. Prison does noy prevent one from killing, it just limits thier options as to who they kill.

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?
NO! but then, you weren't asking me...
EDIT: Sorry, this is still Sliders...just checking my puppet and forgot to switch back

Would you still think that if you were the mistake?
Would you be against the death penalty if your family was murdered? Hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

I would be. If my family were murdered, I'd much rather the murderer serve 50 years mining stone or some other menial, physically demanding task until his body and mind were frail and broken.

You see murders don't just reform in prison. They continue to kill and victimise people and thier families. Prison does noy prevent one from killing, it just limits thier options as to who they kill.
Well, actually, to tell the truth, I don't support limiting it to 50 years, I'm a fan of the life sentence. Though, what real incentive do they have to work if they know they're gonna be there forever? Hmmm..I'll have to think about it a little more, but I'm still against the death penalty.

...the server seems to be against my posting this...interesting...

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Well, in that impossible situation, I guess I wouldn't like that at all. Here's a question for you. If you were in prison for a non-violent crime and were raped by a murderer before he stabbed you to death, would you ,in the last few moments of your life, be glad that your rapist/murderer was imprisoned and not executed? Like, I said before, hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Well, in that impossible situation, I guess I wouldn't like that at all. Here's a question for you. If you were in prison for a non-violent crime and were raped by a murderer before he stabbed you to death, would you ,in the last few moments of your life, be glad that your rapist/murderer was imprisoned and not executed? Like, I said before, hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?
Well, I don't support victimless activities being called "crimes" so if the world was my ideal, I wouldn't be there anyway.
But, while I would not be happy to be dying, I would be glad that while alive I supported what was right. Even if that meant he was still alive- he wasn't one of the innocents, so he's not the special case I care about. It would be worth him still being alive so that I could die with a clean conscience, knowing that no innocent died directly because I supported an evil cause.

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Well, in that impossible situation, I guess I wouldn't like that at all. Here's a question for you. If you were in prison for a non-violent crime and were raped by a murderer before he stabbed you to death, would you ,in the last few moments of your life, be glad that your rapist/murderer was imprisoned and not executed? Like, I said before, hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?
Well, I don't support victimless activities being called "crimes" so if the world was my ideal, I wouldn't be there anyway.
But, while I would not be happy to be dying, I would be glad that while alive I supported what was right. Even if that meant he was still alive- he wasn't one of the innocents, so he's not the special case I care about. It would be worth him still being alive so that I could die with a clean conscience, knowing that no innocent died directly because I supported an evil cause.

Yes, but wouldn't you,being an innocent, in your view because you commited a victimless crime, die because of your support of what's "right"?
And, non-violent cimes also have victims.

ah, I predicted that, so I threw in the word directly. An innocent man found guilty of murder and put to death would be killed directly by my stance (well not by MINE, but...) whereas I would be killed indirectly by someone who was still alive.

And, non-violent cimes also have victims.
Well then, what sort of crime do you mean? I'd like an example

And, non-violent cimes also have victims.
Well then, what sort of crime do you mean? I'd like an example
Burglary, let's say.

ah, I predicted that, so I threw in the word directly. An innocent man found guilty of murder and put to death would be killed directly by my stance (well not by MINE, but...) whereas I would be killed indirectly by someone who was still alive.

No, you would be killed by someone who could not be executed as a direct result of your stance.

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Well, in that impossible situation, I guess I wouldn't like that at all. Here's a question for you. If you were in prison for a non-violent crime and were raped by a murderer before he stabbed you to death, would you ,in the last few moments of your life, be glad that your rapist/murderer was imprisoned and not executed? Like, I said before, hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?
He should be in a different prison. He is serving life I am being punished and reformed, the prisons should be different.

And, non-violent cimes also have victims.
Well then, what sort of crime do you mean? I'd like an example
Burglary, let's say.
that's violent- you're taking things by force
Even if you don't harm a person or even come across one, it has violent roots
Besides, I wouldn't do something like that- and if I did, I wouldn't consider myself to be an innocent. Though I still wouldn't deserve to die for it.

And yes, I would die indirectly, but I couldn't blame it on myself. It's the murderer who killed me, and I won't be held responsible for his actions

You have a problem with this, why?
It says, quite clearly, that someone must have been KILLED in the commission of a terrorist act.
First off, this doesn't effect innocent people
Second off, it doesn't expand the death penalty to cases where no one was killed
Thirdly, the death penalty in this case might get used, well, never - except perhaps on some of those sitting in Gitmo. Well, perhaps the next Tim McVeigh as well. Would you really have a problem giving someone like that the death penalty?

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Well, in that impossible situation, I guess I wouldn't like that at all. Here's a question for you. If you were in prison for a non-violent crime and were raped by a murderer before he stabbed you to death, would you ,in the last few moments of your life, be glad that your rapist/murderer was imprisoned and not executed? Like, I said before, hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?
He should be in a different prison. He is serving life I am being punished and reformed, the prisons should be different.

Trust me, they aren't different prisons. Reform is not even a consideration in prison.

And, non-violent cimes also have victims.
Well then, what sort of crime do you mean? I'd like an example
Burglary, let's say.
that's violent- you're taking things by force
Even if you don't harm a person or even come across one, it has violent roots
Besides, I wouldn't do something like that- and if I did, I wouldn't consider myself to be an innocent. Though I still wouldn't deserve to die for it.

And yes, I would die indirectly, but I couldn't blame it on myself. It's the murderer who killed me, and I won't be held responsible for his actions

Burglary is not a violent crime. Robbery is a violent crime. Robbery is taking things by force, while burglary is taking things stealthily.

And, non-violent cimes also have victims.
Well then, what sort of crime do you mean? I'd like an example
Burglary, let's say.
that's violent- you're taking things by force
Even if you don't harm a person or even come across one, it has violent roots
Besides, I wouldn't do something like that- and if I did, I wouldn't consider myself to be an innocent. Though I still wouldn't deserve to die for it.

And yes, I would die indirectly, but I couldn't blame it on myself. It's the murderer who killed me, and I won't be held responsible for his actions

I think you misunderstand the word violent. If the door is not locked or even closed and you go inside and take things it's burglary. Where's the violence or force?

So say your mother was convicted of a crime she did not commit. Would you see her execution as justifiable for the greater good?

Well, in that impossible situation, I guess I wouldn't like that at all. Here's a question for you. If you were in prison for a non-violent crime and were raped by a murderer before he stabbed you to death, would you ,in the last few moments of your life, be glad that your rapist/murderer was imprisoned and not executed? Like, I said before, hypothetical questions are fun, aren't they?
He should be in a different prison. He is serving life I am being punished and reformed, the prisons should be different.
.
But we are talking about how things should be.
If prison has no aspect of reform then other punishements like flogging, the stocks, public humiliation etc would be better for some crimes and cheaper.
My System:
Two sets of prisons. In both the prisoners have to work to get anything other than basic food and accommodation.

Tier one: Reform prison. (not to be used for some of the more violent crimes)
Education and reform, with decent facilities where prisoners earn the right to extra privileges. For first time offenders only.

Tier two: Violent crimes and repeat offenders. Cool hand Luke style prisons that aim to make a profit. No work no food, burn your hut down you build another or sleep outside.

I will skip all the other details but this is the general thrust.

So unless you were a violent criminal (e.g rapist, murderer etc) or a repeat offender you would not encounter the murderer in your scenario.

Trust me, they aren't different prisons. Reform is not even a consideration in prison

I think you misunderstand the word violent. If the door is not locked or even closed and you go inside and take things it's burglary. Where's the violence or force?
Well I do apologize- I didn't know that burglary referred only to people who took things that were easily accessible from houses with already open doors.
Whatever the technical definition of violent crimes, I consider burglary to be one. What if you stole something the person needed to live, or you stole someone's oxycontin that they needed to avoid severe pain? I understand that such a case would not be direct, I just feel that stealing of any sort has an aggressive aspect to it that I don't support. You're still taking something by force. Like the force of picking up whatever it is and putting it in your pocket. And that is force against the person who owns it, because they worked hard to get it (or else someone else worked hard to give it to them) and taking it is an action of force against them

Do you have the legal definitions of robbery, burglary, and larceny Deeloleo? I can't remember the difference between larceny and burglary.

If we are talking about the way things should be, then there should be no prisons or crimes or need for any sort of punishment. That dream world will never exist. Building two prison systems is impractical prison are already a huge burden on society. In your system, what would you do about crimes committed in prison?

Do you have the legal definitions of robbery, burglary, and larceny Deeloleo? I can't remember the difference between larceny and burglary.

Larceny is any act of theft, burglary is entering another person or organisation's property to steal. Robbery is using force or coersion to steal.

If we are talking about the way things should be, then there should be no prisons or crimes or need for any sort of punishment. That dream world will never exist. Building two prison systems is impractical prison are already a huge burden on society. In your system, what would you do about crimes committed in prison?
My system should be cheaper in thelong run and with any luck produce fewer re offenders than the current systems (as I say with any luck). So the current prison could be used but in a different way. If you use the death penalty to be cost effective you do what the Russians and Chinese do. Sentance passed, down the stairs, outside, dead. If you have no faith in the system then have a very expensive appeals procedure.
On the crimes commited in prison, treat them like any other crime, increase sentances, withdraw privelages, increase work loads etc.
What do they do with them now? Pretty much nothing as far as I can tell.
As you say no crime in the first place is a start. That comes from education and a social conscience.

Do you have the legal definitions of robbery, burglary, and larceny Deeloleo? I can't remember the difference between larceny and burglary.

Larceny is any act of theft, burglary is entering another person or organisation's property to steal. Robbery is using force or coersion to steal.

Is there a monetary difference between larceny and burglary? Or is larceny just an overall term for things like buglary and robbery?

Do you have the legal definitions of robbery, burglary, and larceny Deeloleo? I can't remember the difference between larceny and burglary.

Larceny is any act of theft, burglary is entering another person or organisation's property to steal. Robbery is using force or coersion to steal.

Is there a monetary difference between larceny and burglary? Or is larceny just an overall term for things like buglary and robbery?

I think, you are thinking of larceny and grand larceny, there is a monetary distinction between those.

Do you have the legal definitions of robbery, burglary, and larceny Deeloleo? I can't remember the difference between larceny and burglary.

Larceny is any act of theft, burglary is entering another person or organisation's property to steal. Robbery is using force or coersion to steal.

Is there a monetary difference between larceny and burglary? Or is larceny just an overall term for things like buglary and robbery?

I think, you are thinking of larceny and grand larceny, there is a monetary distinction between those.

Okay. I'm getting confused the difference between larceny and burglary.

Do you have the legal definitions of robbery, burglary, and larceny Deeloleo? I can't remember the difference between larceny and burglary.

Larceny is any act of theft, burglary is entering another person or organisation's property to steal. Robbery is using force or coersion to steal.

Is there a monetary difference between larceny and burglary? Or is larceny just an overall term for things like buglary and robbery?

I think, you are thinking of larceny and grand larceny, there is a monetary distinction between those.


Okay. I'm getting confused the difference between larceny and burglary.
Larceny? Not a term in general use in the UK.

If we are talking about the way things should be, then there should be no prisons or crimes or need for any sort of punishment. That dream world will never exist. Building two prison systems is impractical prison are already a huge burden on society. In your system, what would you do about crimes committed in prison?
My system should be cheaper in thelong run and with any luck produce fewer re offenders than the current systems (as I say with any luck). So the current prison could be used but in a different way. If you use the death penalty to be cost effective you do what the Russians and Chinese do. Sentance passed, down the stairs, outside, dead. If you have no faith in the system then have a very expensive appeals procedure.
On the crimes commited in prison, treat them like any other crime, increase sentances, withdraw privelages, increase work loads etc.
What do they do with them now? Pretty much nothing as far as I can tell.
As you say no crime in the first place is a start. That comes from education and a social conscience.

No crime comes from no people. That is the only way to cmpletely end crime. Statistics show that the majority of people who are imprisoned return to prison at some point, largely because prisons do nothing to reform anyone, so your system would have one unneccesary branch. What I meant by the qusetion about what to do about crimes committed in prison is, do those who commit the go to the prison for repeat offenders and violent criminals? If so, you will have one unneccesary prison.

I think, you are thinking of larceny and grand larceny, there is a monetary distinction between those.[/quote]

Okay. I'm getting confused the difference between larceny and burglary.[/quote]
Like you stated in an earlier post, larceny is a blanket term. Used for all forms of theft.

If we are talking about the way things should be, then there should be no prisons or crimes or need for any sort of punishment. That dream world will never exist. Building two prison systems is impractical prison are already a huge burden on society. In your system, what would you do about crimes committed in prison?
My system should be cheaper in thelong run and with any luck produce fewer re offenders than the current systems (as I say with any luck). So the current prison could be used but in a different way. If you use the death penalty to be cost effective you do what the Russians and Chinese do. Sentance passed, down the stairs, outside, dead. If you have no faith in the system then have a very expensive appeals procedure.
On the crimes commited in prison, treat them like any other crime, increase sentances, withdraw privelages, increase work loads etc.
What do they do with them now? Pretty much nothing as far as I can tell.
As you say no crime in the first place is a start. That comes from education and a social conscience.

No crime comes from no people. That is the only way to cmpletely end crime. Statistics show that the majority of people who are imprisoned return to prison at some point, largely because prisons do nothing to reform anyone, so your system would have one unneccesary branch. What I meant by the qusetion about what to do about crimes committed in prison is, do those who commit the go to the prison for repeat offenders and violent criminals? If so, you will have one unneccesary prison.
No because if it works people will not re offend and not all criminals commit further crimes in prison.
Not saying it would be a perfect system just better than the current one.
Either that or find a new continent to ship them off to.

You guys just keep on enjoying all that wonderful freedom you have in the USA, that we don't get any of in Europe.
Yeah, it appears that America is turning that corner. It is sad to see what is happening to the people who dwell in the "land of the free, and the home of the brave". Their country is being hijacked from within.

NONE has the right to take a life. Neither the criminal, neither the society. Stealing someone´s freedom for years it´s enough punishment. Not teaching o trying to understand him it´s a worse crime (specially in a very rich society).

One of the great things about laws, that have death as a punishment, no repeat offenders to deal with.
What about the innocent people who are put to death? Or are their lives not as important to you?