NationStates Jolt Archive

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.




About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.




About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.

For once, I can agree with the Supreme Court on something.

I find it hard to believe that even an eight-year old doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, especially when it comes to murder.

There's nothing to stop the courts from imposing life in prison without parole.

From a human rights perspective, the idea of spending the rest of your life in a Supermax is far worse than being lethally injected.

Hurrah! :) About bloody fucking time!! Let's hope they stop killing grown-ups and other people's children next! :cool:

http://img167.exs.cx/img167/6175/sc2cervantes2eq.jpg
They have abandoned The darkness? Come child, can you not see that world needs darkness?

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.

About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.
You know, perhaps you should find something about Canada you can talk about. It gets really tiresome when all you ever do is rant on and on about the US. It makes me wonder just what sort of secret agenda you have.

Here's a challenge for you: find at least one good thing to say about the US, and at least one thing where Canada can improve.

I don't have a problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with the court system. If we know for sure that you're the one who did the crime, then I have no problem making sure you can never do it again - and I'm not really willing to pay to incarcerate someone for 60 years.

You could very well be sentenced to life in prison without parole for something you didn't do - and have no hope of appealing (after your appeals and money run out).

But, in cases where we have you on video killing someone, and the DNA also puts you at the scene, and the bullets in the victims match your gun, I have no problem with having anyone like that hung in public.

I do believe that there isn't a definite age at which you are conscious of right and wrong - that probably depends on the person. But that falls under the legal definition of sanity - did you know that what you were doing is wrong (i.e., did you take steps to conceal your crime).

If you're conscious of right and wrong, then you should get the same punishment as anyone else.

You know, perhaps you should find something about Canada you can talk about. It gets really tiresome when all you ever do is rant on and on about the US. It makes me wonder just what sort of secret agenda you have.

Here's a challenge for you: find at least one good thing to say about the US, and at least one thing where Canada can improve.

Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

You know, perhaps you should find something about Canada you can talk about. It gets really tiresome when all you ever do is rant on and on about the US. It makes me wonder just what sort of secret agenda you have.

Here's a challenge for you: find at least one good thing to say about the US, and at least one thing where Canada can improve.


In other words, once again attack me and ignore the discussion. Is that all you can do these days Eutrusca?



And in case you haven't noticed, this subject is actually quite clear in it's agreement with a SCOTUS decision - it is not part of a "hidden agenda" to discredit your country.


Careful Eutrusca - your paranoia is showing.

:rolleyes:

It's too bad then Zepp, that it appears that SCOTUS is unlikely to eliminate the death penalty.

It's too bad then Zepp, that it appears that SCOTUS is unlikely to eliminate the death penalty.

Rome wasn't built in a day, we can hope, we can hope.

Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

But he does have a point. All you and Zepp do is bitch about the US. Find something nice to say about us and what needs to be improved in Canada. :D

Anyway, Putting juvenile's in prison for life is good.

However, after reading the article, I like to know where in the US Constitution does it forbid the killing of juveniles.

In other words, once again attack me and ignore the discussion. Is that all you can do these days Eutrusca?

And in case you haven't noticed, this subject is actually quite clear in it's agreement with a SCOTUS decision - it is not part of a "hidden agenda" to discredit your country.

Careful Eutrusca - your paranoia is showing.

:rolleyes:
As I've pointed out before, paranoia is warranted where you're concerned. Personally, I think it would be kewl if you would actually just do those two things I asked, you know? It's just a relatively small request, doesn't even require much thought. :)

Rome wasn't built in a day, we can hope, we can hope.

Yes, after Bush finishes appointing more justices...

The problem is not in the death penalty - the problem is in the means of finding someone guilty.

But he does have a point. All you and Zepp do is bitch about the US.

I believe Zep is free to raise any topic he likes? Yes, I thought so. Perhaps if Canada had any thing interesting going on and when it does, we'll discuss that too.

However, after reading the article, I like to know where in the US Constitution does it forbid the killing of juveniles.

You need a peice of paper to tell you its wrong to kill kids? Dont you think its kind of intuitive?

As I've pointed out before, paranoia is warranted where you're concerned. Personally, I think it would be kewl if you would actually just do those two things I asked, you know? It's just a relatively small request, doesn't even require much thought. :)


Please stop trying to hijack my threads with personal sidebars.


I'm very tired of it.

You need a peice of paper to tell you its wrong to kill kids? Dont you think its kind of intuitive?

SCOTUS said that it violates the Constitution to put a juvenile to death. Were is it.

As I've pointed out before, paranoia is warranted where you're concerned. Personally, I think it would be kewl if you would actually just do those two things I asked, you know? It's just a relatively small request, doesn't even require much thought. :)

Well he's already done one of them with the first post of the thread: He said it was a GOOD thing that this had been stopped, how one can take that and somehow twist it into something negative is beyond me... unless of course you're of the opinion that you should execute children....

Bad thing about Canada... They won't be pressing charges against the UK regarding the sale of submarines that were clearly unfit for sea where they quite clearly have good cause. That is imho almost as bad as the UK Government trying like hell to avoid all responisibility about it.

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.


About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.

This is indeed great news. I can't wait until all abortions are banned, which will be the next logical step!! :)

Hazzah!This news is excellent, but I don't know if it will last.

SCOTUS said that it violates the Constitution to put a juvenile to death. Were is it.


Guess you'll have to wait until they post the ruling on the website, however the article indicates that the decision rested on the "cruel and unusual" notation of the Constitution. This leaves it to the court's opinion as what is deemed cruel and unusual is generally a matter of prevailing public sentiment rather than a strictly defined set of guidelines. So I would guess that this will be a topic of debate around the water cooler....

Guess you'll have to wait until they post the ruling on the website, however the article indicates that the decision rested on the "cruel and unusual" notation of the Constitution. This leaves it to the court's opinion as what is deemed cruel and unusual is generally a matter of prevailing public sentiment rather than a strictly defined set of guidelines. So I would guess that this will be a topic of debate around the water cooler....

In that case, then we should throw open the jails then because I consider that cruel and unusual punishment.

However, after reading the article, I like to know where in the US Constitution does it forbid the killing of juveniles.
The Eighth Amendment forbids punishment that is "cruel and unusual". It is then up to the courts to decide, on behalf of the people, what constitutes cruelty.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

In that case, then we should throw open the jails then because I consider that cruel and unusual punishment.


Somehow I don't think you'll ever get appointed to the Supreme Court with THAT viewpoint! lol.

The Eighth Amendment forbids punishment that is "cruel and unusual". It is then up to the courts to decide, on behalf of the people, what constitutes cruelty.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

How is death cruel and unusual punishment for those that have committed murders?

Glad to see that we're protecting the underage from the death penalty. Though I'm with MarkReich; I'd like some of that logic extended to the unborn. But that probably won't be happening any time soon.

Great. Now we have to support the degenerates for 70 years instead of just 20.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-033.gif

How is death cruel and unusual punishment for those that have committed murders?

It's cruel to kill people, isn't it? And unusual, too, especially when they're underage. Not many other countries do it.

Great. Now for the people 18+

It's cruel to kill people, isn't it? And unusual, too, especially when they're underage. Not many other countries do it.

So we should be like any other country in the world? I'm not saying this decision is bad mind you, but I would like to know how it is cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone that deserves to die?

Here ya go Zepp, finally an article about Canada that you can discuss:


Canada is a tiny blip! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050227.wkergin0227/BNStory/National)

You know, perhaps you should find something about Canada you can talk about. It gets really tiresome when all you ever do is rant on and on about the US. It makes me wonder just what sort of secret agenda you have.

Here's a challenge for you: find at least one good thing to say about the US, and at least one thing where Canada can improve.
As a fellow Canadian, I have this to say to you.

This forum is rather US-issue heavy...and if you go posting things about Canada, you don't get much of a discussion going. However, something like this topic is a great way to dive into the whole wider issue of what defines a child, whether they know right from wrong, whether capital punishment is effective and so on. Zep brought up a particular example, and now we can run with it, and ignore the people that just want to bash the US.

You should know by now that Zep is not one to mindlessly 'bash' the US. He uses examples that most of the people on the forum are familiar with in order to discuss the issues that lay BEHIND the example.

Here ya go Zepp, finally an article about Canada that you can discuss:


Canada is a tiny blip! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050227.wkergin0227/BNStory/National)


and you can also please refrain from trying to hijack the thread. besides, the fact that the US tends to ignore the opinions of anyone but themselves - including their largest trading partner - is not exactly an earth-shattering revelation....

But he does have a point. All you and Zepp do is bitch about the US. Find something nice to say about us and what needs to be improved in Canada. :D

You are missing the point that this thread IS saying something nice about the US. You know what needs to be improved in Canada? Ralph Klein. But that is an issue for a different thread.

You are missing the point that this thread IS saying something nice about the US. You know what needs to be improved in Canada? Ralph Klein. But that is an issue for a different thread.

Your military needs work too but yea! Issue for another thread. As I've stated before though, I agree with the Supreme Court regarding Juveniles. However, for adults? Send them to the chair if they commit murder.

and you can also please refrain from trying to hijack the thread. besides, the fact that the US tends to ignore the opinions of anyone but themselves - including their largest trading partner - is not exactly an earth-shattering revelation....

I wasn't trying to hijack it, just giving you something to browse and maybe start another tread with.

We are the top dog (the US) nowadays, so why should the opionions of a nation of 35 million really matter all that much? Sure you are our largest trading partner, but please. If you want to play with us, you should have to follow our rules.

Speaking of the topic at hand, there is nothing wrong with executing those under the age of 18 (from 15-17 years of age). Unless you are retarded, you should know right from wrong.

Canada has many problems with crime and punishment (or lack of punishment). What do you think some of the possible solutions to your growing crime rates could be?

It's cruel to kill people, isn't it? And unusual, too, especially when they're underage. Not many other countries do it.

I don't have any hard data - but I know that in most Sharia nations for example they most certainly do. Are there stats?

'Cruel and unusual' was intended to ward off 'hung, drawn, and quartered' for example. This practice involved strangulation, the removal of the intestines and sexual organs, and then having the person torn apart between four horses.

The definition is societal and has changed with time - I guess the court is ruling that the death penalty now qualifies (in some cases). Once the stocks were outlawed it was only a matter of time I suppose - slippery slopes and all.

So we should be like any other country in the world? I'm not saying this decision is bad mind you, but I would like to know how it is cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone that deserves to die?

Well... I don't know how Scotus came to their conclusion, but it IS cruel to kill people, isn't it? And something that doesn't happen a lot, is unusual, isn't it? :confused: Maybe it would be simpler if they changed the wording of the 8th amendment to prohibit "things that seem like a really bad idea".

I don't have any hard data - but I know that in most Sharia nations for example they most certainly do. Are there stats?

'Cruel and unusual' was intended to ward off 'hung, drawn, and quartered' for example. This practice involved strangulation, the removal of the intestines and sexual organs, and then having the person torn apart between four horses.

The definition is societal and has changed with time - I guess the court is ruling that the death penalty now qualifies (in some cases). Once the stocks were outlawed it was only a matter of time I suppose - slippery slopes and all.

I don't think what is "usual" in Sharia law can be used as guidelines for what should be law in modern, supposedly civilized countries... any more than mediaeval English law can. :)

who's military doesn't need work?

and where is Zepp saying anythign bad about the US in this thread because I completely missed it. In fact, find a post where Zepp bashes the US in the entire forum because I would liek to see that.

Bashing the Bush administration is not the same thing as bashing the US.

I think those who are calling Zepp out about anti-americanism are just mad that they cannot effectively argue against him without getting totally pwned.

Get over your inferiority complexes people and get back on topic.

Corny, why do you think kids deserve to die for committing murder? What gives you the right to determine why someone shoudl die when the person committing murder does not? How does realeasing someone from teh burdens of life effectively punish anyone? Unless you believe in hell but that shouldnt be a consideration when making laws in a secular nation.

Well... I don't know how Scotus came to their conclusion, but it IS cruel to kill people, isn't it? And something that doesn't happen a lot, is unusual, isn't it? :confused: Maybe it would be simpler if they changed the wording of the 8th amendment to prohibit "things that seem like a really bad idea".

You need to know the meaning of the phrase, "cruel and unusual" as it applies to the law. Stop trying to use the common meaning of the word "cruel" and you'll find it easier to understand.

The U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The defendant has the burden of proving that his punishment is greater than that imposed for more serious offenses in the state and that similar offenses in other states do not carry punishments as severe.

While outright torture, and even certain forms of the death penalty are considered "cruel", the important element that implies cruelty is an overabundance of pain and physical torment.

SCOTUS has also stated that the burden of proof for cruelty is very, very high.

To define lethal injection as "cruel and unusual", most US states would have to have banned the death penalty (thereby making it "unusual"), and there would have to be solid evidence that at some point in the process, the prisoner felt an overabundance of pain or was in conscious physical torment.

Since it's identical in feeling to the start of any typical general anesthesia, it would be hard to argue that it was somehow "cruel" under the legal definition. It's painless.

You need to know the meaning of the phrase, "cruel and unusual" as it applies to the law. Stop trying to use the common meaning of the word "cruel" and you'll find it easier to understand.

The U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The defendant has the burden of proving that his punishment is greater than that imposed for more serious offenses in the state and that similar offenses in other states do not carry punishments as severe.

While outright torture, and even certain forms of the death penalty are considered "cruel", the important element that implies cruelty is an overabundance of pain and physical torment.

SCOTUS has also stated that the burden of proof for cruelty is very, very high.

To define lethal injection as "cruel and unusual", most US states would have to have banned the death penalty (thereby making it "unusual"), and there would have to be solid evidence that at some point in the process, the prisoner felt an overabundance of pain or was in conscious physical torment.

Since it's identical in feeling to the start of any typical general anesthesia, it would be hard to argue that it was somehow "cruel" under the legal definition. It's painless.

Well, they seem to have argued this nevertheless. So how do you think their reasoning goes, then?

Well, they seem to have argued this nevertheless. So how do you think their reasoning go, then?

It's "unusual", in that most US states don't execute children. Therefore, the ones that do are engaging in an unusual practice.

It's "cruel", in that children legally have long been accorded a potential lack of understanding of the meaning of right and wrong. Previous SCOTUS decisions prevent execution of people who demonstrably can't tell the difference - it's considered "cruel" to execute someone who has no idea why you're executing them.

Note that it's really, really difficult to fall into that category. Now, you either have to be a child, or, you have to have felt so compelled to commit your crime you didn't care who saw it or found out. Any attempt to conceal your crime - whether by a simple lie, a omission of statement, or burying a body - and you're no longer in the safety net of legal insanity.

As an example, no serial killer in US history has ever felt compelled to commit their crime in front of a police station, and then call out to the police inside for them to come see what he had just done.

Speaking of the topic at hand, there is nothing wrong with executing those under the age of 18 (from 15-17 years of age). Unless you are retarded, you should know right from wrong.
Ok, if those kids know right from wrong, why not allow them to vote? Drink beer? Have sex?

Isn't there also a passage that says something like, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property,except under due process" hiding in that same Constitution? In other words, it is okay to deprive someone of life if due process is used?

With all due respect to those that hold other opinions, I feel the SCOTUS goofed this one. Sixteen is old enough to know not to murder, and people who murder should be put to death (once proven and with consideration for the circumstances.) Am I a barbarian, then? Some of you might think so. That's your right. And I'll kill or die if need be to defend your right to think ill of me.

:)

In other words, it is okay to deprive someone of life if due process is used?


Yes, it's perfectly OK.

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.




About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.
BRAVO!! This is certainly a step in the right direction. :)

Now all they need to do is abolish ALL executions.

BRAVO!! This is certainly a step in the right direction. :)

Now all they need to do is abolish ALL executions.

Especially abortions and euthenasia!!

Ok, if those kids know right from wrong, why not allow them to vote? Drink beer? Have sex?

They do not have the knowledge to vote (don't say they do!). I still think voting should only be done by property owners, but that's just me.

Their brains are still growing and they are still learning. Why allow them to make themselves less capable by allowing them to drink?

Teenagers are allowed to have sex. How many teenagers who fornicate are being arrested? Sure most of them are irresponsible, but stupidity isn't a crime (I'd be arrested by now if it was!).

By the age of 16 you are mature enough to drive. You could die behind the wheel at 16, so why couldn't we execute a young adult at 16? I don't consider 15-17 yr olds children. Did you still visit your pediatrician at 16?

It's "unusual", in that most US states don't execute children. Therefore, the ones that do are engaging in an unusual practice.

It's "cruel", in that children legally have long been accorded a potential lack of understanding of the meaning of right and wrong. Previous SCOTUS decisions prevent execution of people who demonstrably can't tell the difference - it's considered "cruel" to execute someone who has no idea why you're executing them.

Note that it's really, really difficult to fall into that category. Now, you either have to be a child, or, you have to have felt so compelled to commit your crime you didn't care who saw it or found out. Any attempt to conceal your crime - whether by a simple lie, a omission of statement, or burying a body - and you're no longer in the safety net of legal insanity.

As an example, no serial killer in US history has ever felt compelled to commit their crime in front of a police station, and then call out to the police inside for them to come see what he had just done.

Well, I'm happy either way :) But if the reasoning is that something is unusual because few US states do it - how did the first US states to ban the execution of children argue? Is there any hope that some of them start getting rid of the whole death penalty soon?

Especially abortions and euthenasia!!

Agreed.

Well, I'm happy either way :) But if the reasoning is that something is unusual because few US states do it - how did the first US states to ban the execution of children argue? Is there any hope that some of them start getting rid of the whole death penalty soon?

The states that don't execute children either didn't start, or they later removed the sentencing provision.

Each US state is allowed to make its own punishments, subject to the limits of the Constitution (and their own State Constitution).

You would have to get most states to drop the death penalty (remove it from each state's law code), or get the SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional at some basic level.

The first is far more likely than the last.

How is death cruel and unusual punishment for those that have committed murders?
Capital punishment is barbaric and violates one of God's Commandments.

What's wrong with executing brats? All people should be punished the same, regardless of age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Capital punishment is barbaric and violates one of God's Commandments.

Ever read the Bible? The Bible approves of capital punishment.

Capital punishment is barbaric and violates one of God's Commandments.

Read the Bible sometime.

What's wrong with executing brats? All people should be punished the same, regardless of age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.


you are SUPPOSED to beat on the brat with a baseball bat. Oh yeah.

you are SUPPOSED to beat on the brat with a baseball bat. Oh yeah.

No, but if a brat kills someone, they should be executed.

Talk about getting off easy.

Just got back from the store, so had to do a bit of catching up on this thread.

You know ... I'm actually pleased that the US Supreme Court has abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The whole issue is a bucket of worms: when a juvenile commits murder, what the hell DO you do with them? My personal feelings on the matter are that death is a bit much for any juvenile crime. But what about the victim? What about the victim's family? What about the right of society to be free of fear that a juvenile will kill again after being released from prison?

As a matter of fact, I'm not entirely sure that the death penalty is acceptable for any crime ( except perhaps desertion in the face of the enemy for military personnel. I'm not ready to yield on that one ). Yet society and the people in it have a reasonable expectation to be free from fear of predators, particularly those who prey on children, and a reasonable expectation that justice will be done. I know that if someone ( juvenile or not ) killed one of my grandchildren, I would do my best to kill them. Period.

In short, I don't have any of the easy answers that seem to come from those who adhere to a far left ideology which always seems to have more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victim. People who live in ivory towers, who are insulated from the reality the rest of us have to face, have all the answers as to how the rest of us should live. I, unfortunately ( fortunately? ) have no such luxury.

Teenagers are allowed to have sex. How many teenagers who fornicate are being arrested?
They have no free choice of sexual partner, that better? God forbid that a teen of tender 17 get it on with a mean abusing adult of 19.

Ever read the Bible? The Bible approves of capital punishment.
Yeah I do, and it states: THOU SHALT NOT KILL

What's wrong with executing brats? All people should be punished the same, regardless of age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
What do YOU gain by these people being executed?

In short, I don't have any of the easy answers that seem to come from those who adhere to a far left ideology which always seems to have more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victim.
Come on, the easy-answer-illness has both sides firmly in its grasp. ;)

They have abandoned The darkness? Come child, can you not see that world needs darkness?
That pic is not so effective with a pure white background.

Great news. I always thought the permission of the death penalty for minors was even more barbarous than that for adults.

Yeah I do, and it states: THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Yeah, but it also says "An eye for an eye," blah blah blah, et. al.

Just watch the film "City of God" and see where you are heading.
No juvenile in Brazil can be convicted of a crime. If they are 17 years and 360 days old when they commit the crime, it is wiped off their record 4 or 5 days later. Great. This is a license for crime bosses to commit murder by using juvenile hit men. Some protection that is for children.

Look at the UK system for a reasonable approach. Case by case assessment of the culpability of the juvenile. No blanket quick fix solution works.

What do YOU gain by these people being executed?

The satisfaction that justice has been served. :)

I disagree with Supreme Court on this and this is why:

17 Year Old D.C. Sniper Lee Malvo, knew exactly what he was doing, when he shot those people with a .223 sniper rifle(a gun made to wound people before they die)

You have all of the people saying how unfair it is to the childern to give them the death penalty because the are under 18. My one statement is this, what about the victims, do the victims get a say??

Let me leave you with this.. In 1985 in my hometown of Jackson, Mississippi. A person was send to the gas chamber to be executed. The paper made this big to do about all the pain that he would have in the gas chamber but failed to mention the crime he committed (wanna know what that was??) He raped a 9 year old girl then threw her off a bridge in downtown Jackson(it would have been nice if she already was dead, but she wasn't) she drowned in 2 inches of mud, because she couldn't lift her head out of the water.

If you kill someone with intent to do so, no matter your age. You should be punished by death.

Just got back from the store, so had to do a bit of catching up on this thread.

You know ... I'm actually pleased that the US Supreme Court has abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The whole issue is a bucket of worms: when a juvenile commits murder, what the hell DO you do with them? My personal feelings on the matter are that death is a bit much for any juvenile crime. But what about the victim? What about the victim's family? What about the right of society to be free of fear that a juvenile will kill again after being released from prison?

As a matter of fact, I'm not entirely sure that the death penalty is acceptable for any crime ( except perhaps desertion in the face of the enemy for military personnel. I'm not ready to yield on that one ). Yet society and the people in it have a reasonable expectation to be free from fear of predators, particularly those who prey on children, and a reasonable expectation that justice will be done. I know that if someone ( juvenile or not ) killed one of my grandchildren, I would do my best to kill them. Period.

In short, I don't have any of the easy answers that seem to come from those who adhere to a far left ideology which always seems to have more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victim. People who live in ivory towers, who are insulated from the reality the rest of us have to face, have all the answers as to how the rest of us should live. I, unfortunately ( fortunately? ) have no such luxury.
The States that don't have the death penalty actually have a lower murder rate.

The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards
Ooh, sounds like someone's still prickly about Roe vs. Wade.

The satisfaction that justice has been served. :)
How is killing people to say that killing people is wrong give you satisfaction?

Check out the elite set of countries that still promote the death penalty:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Impressive company. I didn't think the US wanted to be known as 3rd world in anything?

17 Year Old D.C. Sniper Lee Malvo, knew exactly what he was doing, when he shot those people with a .223 sniper rifle(a gun made to wound people before they die)
Sorry to call you on your nice emotional bs here, but a) every rifle wounds, otherwise it could not kill, and b) sniper rifles arent designed in order to cause painful wounds but a precise shot. You can use a frigging Barrett .50 in the manner you described, but that doesnt mean it is made for that. Sniping and torturing arent very compatible and for sure no weapon is designed for that.

Yeah, but it also says "An eye for an eye," blah blah blah, et. al.

Actually that was Hammarabi(sp?), about 2000 years before the bible.

Anyways, if someone knowingly and willingly commits murder (Mens Rea) then they ought to be killed as well. Not just for the family's staisfaction but as a deterent(sp?).

In short, I don't have any of the easy answers that seem to come from those who adhere to a far left ideology which always seems to have more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victim. People who live in ivory towers, who are insulated from the reality the rest of us have to face, have all the answers as to how the rest of us should live. I, unfortunately ( fortunately? ) have no such luxury.

But... there is no such luxury as middle ground. ;) You can't partly execute somebody. The death penalty can't be a bit too much. Either you're dead, or you're not! It's exactly because nobody has all the answers that I think the death penalty is wrong. Somebody who killed somebody might, given time, come to regret what they did, and change. You never know.

Ooh, sounds like someone's still prickly about Roe vs. Wade.


Ewwwyaaa he's gunning for that.

He either has balls the size of basketballs or is the supreme idiot as another comment he made.

"The founding fathers never used the phrase separation of church and state."

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.



Hopefully, this will be one of the issues that gets immediately overturned.

You know, perhaps you should find something about Canada you can talk about. It gets really tiresome when all you ever do is rant on and on about the US. It makes me wonder just what sort of secret agenda you have.

Here's a challenge for you: find at least one good thing to say about the US, and at least one thing where Canada can improve.

He did find something good to say about America.

We don't execute children... anymore.

Manner in which Canada could stand improvement: weather.

Hopefully, this will be one of the issues that gets immediately overturned.

Hopefully there will soon be a ruling that supreme court justices appointed by republicans CAN be execute. Or rather, shall be. Of course Scalia wrote the argument claiming that it is bad for the Federal government to take away a states power to kill children, but good to take a way a states power to let people have their effing medicine. Worthless bastard ought to be quacked.

(Sorry to call you on your nice emotional bs here, but a) every rifle wounds, otherwise it could not kill, and b) sniper rifles arent designed in order to cause painful wounds but a precise shot. You can use a frigging Barrett .50 in the manner you described, but that doesnt mean it is made for that. Sniping and torturing arent very compatible and for sure no weapon is designed for that.)

Well I hate to burst your bubble.. But I'm going to bring you some bad news.

The M-16/AR-15 (.223 cal rifle) is designed to wound people rather than to kill them, it is not a sniper rifle by trade. The theory behind this is: it takes 2 people to help 1 wounded person off the battlefield, meaning 1 bullet takes out 3 people. And that person, is taken back to the medical place, and given food, and looked after. Meaning more people are taken out of the fight.

The Barret .50 is not a sniper rifle as well, it is anti-personnel/vechile weapon.

Any other weapon debates??

Corporal Jonathan David Essex
United States Marine Corps
1st Marine Division
Combat Engineer
2001-2004

But... there is no such luxury as middle ground. ;) You can't partly execute somebody. The death penalty can't be a bit too much. Either you're dead, or you're not! It's exactly because nobody has all the answers that I think the death penalty is wrong. Somebody who killed somebody might, given time, come to regret what they did, and change. You never know.

Not to mention you never really KNOW. Sure you can be pretty damn sure, but the problem with certainty is that it is just as often the result of deficient thinking on the part of the accuser than it is certainty of evidence.

Too many death penalty convictions are overturned posthumously and too many turn out to be just plain wrong before exectution to have any faith that capital punishment is meted out fairly.

As for Etrusca's muttering about "Ivory Towers" as though all liberals are chtulonic post doctoral aliens, it is the conservatives that demonstrate the supreme emotional isolation by taking satisfaction in any death and not even considering that it might not be justified, but rather, determines the likelihood of the defendants guilt by the severity of the crime.

Just like idiotic jury members in the "killer nanny" case a few years back, "we didn't think she did it, but we didn't want to upset the mother by saying not guilty." Because killing a baby is a terrible crime, the accused MUST be guilty. Or google West Memphis Three. Self proclaimed conservatives should be barred from the judicial process.

One thing I don't get about the conservative position on this issue.

Murder: If you commit murder, you're old enough to commit murder, and must take responsibility for it like any adult would.

Sex: You're not old enough to have sex if you're under 18, and if you do have it before you're old enough then you have to be punished as does your partner. And you don't have the responsibility to know whether or not you want an abortion so your parents have to make that descision. And if they let you, then it is the state's responsibility to stop all of you.

Tell me, does doing something mean you're old enough to do it or not? I have a hard time believing that a 15 year old can't understand all the complex emotional issues and possible complictations that come from sex if they've been educated on the matter, but somehow, an 8 year old DOES understand all the issues involved in killing someone and ought to be held completly accountable for it.

Hopefully there will soon be a ruling that supreme court justices appointed by republicans CAN be execute. Or rather, shall be. Of course Scalia wrote the argument claiming that it is bad for the Federal government to take away a states power to kill children, but good to take a way a states power to let people have their effing medicine. Worthless bastard ought to be quacked.

I honestly don't know if I just got crucified.. or you agreed.

Although I don't agree with the death penalty, I do think that 16 should be the age that people are considered adults in the US. This should be when they are allowed to smoke, drink, buy porn and have sex.

I honestly don't know if I just got crucified.. or you agreed.

I genuinly hate Antonin Scalia. He's the best proof there is that modern "neo-cons" are not conservative. They have no principles at all. I can understand how most of the politicians are just worrying about maintaining their voter base, having already put their political stock in the most intolerant, ignorant, and racist demographics available to them, but I don't understand why Scalia, who has his job for life, would still make such horrible decisions. It's almost as if he got his job through some sort of deal with Satan where he gets to be Chief Justice so long as he votes the wrong way on every decision.

But then again, most unprincipled politicians are making a decision with an eye towards their stock prices and then coming up with novel ways to defend their decisions to the voters. Like "we brought liberty and modern military technology to Iraq." Antonin Scalia just has to make decisions based on stock prices and of course never needs to consult campaign managers to help him not sound like a filthy hypocrite when he makes one contradictory decision after another.

Ok, lets not get into Iraq.

Frankly as a Former Marine(veteran of Afghanistan). IRAQ was the dumbest mistake of all mistakes in the world!

My buddies right now, said they hate us over there.. The "Iraq National Guard" is just an intel post for the insurgents.

They hate us, they will never like us. We should leave now.

Enough about that shit.

As for the "Neo-Cons" I'm a conservative. But not the Bush Religion type.

I'm a Economic conservative, and frankly I'm quite upset..

Ok, lets not get into Iraq.

Frankly as a Former Marine(veteran of Afghanistan). IRAQ was the dumbest mistake of all mistakes in the world!

My buddies right now, said they hate us over there.. The "Iraq National Guard" is just an intel post for the insurgents.

They hate us, they will never like us. We should leave now.

Enough about that shit.

As for the "Neo-Cons" I'm a conservative. But not the Bush Religion type.

I'm a Economic conservative, and frankly I'm quite upset..

First off, congratulations on your progress. It's always a delight to see a real conservative who actually knows that conservatism is not defined as "what politicians who call themselves conservative do," or the more common implicit definition, "arrogant asshole who likes to dress his character defects up in political jargon."

Secon:
Who isn't an economic conservative? If you spend money it has to come from somewhere, and if you don't have it, you don't spend it. Money has to be spent to fix problems. The only difference between an economic liberal and an economic conservative is in what they see as problems, and how bad problems have to get before the government has to step in to fix it. The neo-cons aren't economic conservatives, they're economic idiots.

Problem is the republican party hasn't pursued economic conservatism since Reagen got into office. He was the one who told America that we can put the whole country on a credit card, and that has been the republican party line ever since. Why do you think it took Clinton to stop the national debt from growing? Now that we have a Neo-Con in office it's back up to record levels again. In Manhattan we have a clock that counts the national deficit. We turned it off when we saw the progress Clinton was making, it wasn't fun to see a stopped clock. We have it turned back on now, and the last 3 digits turn so fast that it just looks like '888.'

I genuinly hate Antonin Scalia. He's the best proof there is that modern "neo-cons" are not conservative. They have no principles at all. I can understand how most of the politicians are just worrying about maintaining their voter base, having already put their political stock in the most intolerant, ignorant, and racist demographics available to them, but I don't understand why Scalia, who has his job for life, would still make such horrible decisions. It's almost as if he got his job through some sort of deal with Satan where he gets to be Chief Justice so long as he votes the wrong way on every decision.

But then again, most unprincipled politicians are making a decision with an eye towards their stock prices and then coming up with novel ways to defend their decisions to the voters. Like "we brought liberty and modern military technology to Iraq." Antonin Scalia just has to make decisions based on stock prices and of course never needs to consult campaign managers to help him not sound like a filthy hypocrite when he makes one contradictory decision after another.

Aha!

Okay... NOW I get it. :)

So, does this do anything about the problem of adult gang members hiring juveniles to do their killing for them?

Hurrah! :) About bloody fucking time!! Let's hope they stop killing grown-ups and other people's children next! :cool:


Some people deserve to die.

To be 100% Honest.

I like Joe Liberman, yes a Democrat. I like Liberman, and had nothing against Howard Dean(because he had issues that he stood for, not some political BS)

I don't like the Conservative card today, that you have to be 100% religious and stuff like that. Or if you disagree with the adminstration you're a terrorist.

I define my Conservative ways as this :

Strong Military
Lower Taxes
Less Goverment
Respected Around the World
BALANCED BUDGET WITH NO MASSIVE $460 BILLION DOLLARS OWED!

I'm not Pro-War, but I believe that Afghanistan was and still is the right thing to do.

Iraq was not the right thing to do, neither was

I'm not really willing to pay to incarcerate someone for 60 years.

I do believe that there isn't a definite age at which you are conscious of right and wrong - that probably depends on the person. But that falls under the legal definition of sanity - did you know that what you were doing is wrong (i.e., did you take steps to conceal your crime).

If you're conscious of right and wrong, then you should get the same punishment as anyone else.[/QUOTE]


Actually, it is--on average--more expensive to execute someone rather than to put them in prison for the rest of their life.

Is the point here really whether or not juveniles can understand the moral consequences of their actions? The goverment seems to think that they are NOT responsible enough to: smoke, die for their country, drink, gamble, have sex with adults, and so on. If this is the case, then why should they die for their crimes? This seems inconsistent.

I guess someone could reply that it is a question of efficiency and that we cannot go through and assess, on a case-by-case basis, who can smoke and so forth before they are 18 (and we obvious can in the case of serious crimes). But, I don't hear this justification from politicians or people in MAD.

i've always felt it was ludicrous to claim that a young person can be mature enough to weigh the value of human life while still being too immature to be allowed to buy a beer.

if you want to be able to execute children, you had better be prepared to let them vote, drink, drive, smoke, and exercise all the other rights of adulthood. if you expect somebody to behave as an adult, and if you are going to hold them to adult justice, then they are entitled to the FULL rights of adulthood.

Actually, it is--on average--more expensive to execute someone rather than to put them in prison for the rest of their life.


The expense of execution is primarily the expense of inordinately long trials, regardless of how clear the evidence may be.

There should be an express lane for people who commit their crimes and the evidence contains two or more of the following proofs:
1) Video evidence
2) DNA evidence
3) Ballistic evidence

30 days to final appeal.

Did you still visit your pediatrician at 16?

Well, I'm 17, and I do, but that's because there's this one really hot nurse there that I wouldn't get to see otherwise, and there was no sense of changing doctors for the last year and a half I'm at home.
But as much as I would love to call someone for hating the US, I think that I have to agree with Zepp on this one. I think that it's bad to kill people under 18, although I am curious as to what age you learn how to tell right from wrong. But I think that if you're not old enough to vote, then you're not old enough to recieve capital punishment.

He did find something good to say about America.

We don't execute children... anymore.
"The US finally stops killing children.... "

[ emphasis added for illustrative purposes ]

This falls into the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" category ... inflammatory, backhanded "compliment-with-a-slap," and gratituitously condescending.

Well I learned right from wrong at about 2 years old.

My dad was a Marine Corps Sergeant with 2 tours in Vietnam, I learned very very quick.

I think if someone commits the crime with prior knowledge to do the act, should be punished for it..

But the lawyers can argue about the "prior knowledge", but you don't magically wake up the day after you turn 18 and become an adult.. You are an adult long before then.. The only thing 18 means, is a legal sense of "adult" status

Certainly this is a welcome step along the right road. But, I don't think it should be overstated. USA is still a serious human rights abuser.

I disagree about the USA Human Rights

Yes, the USA does stupid shit. But more often that not the people in the country are good (the goverment is not). So don't say we violate Human Rights stuff.

I mean that makes as much sense as me calling Europeans wusses, because they didn't fight in the War.

The USA does do some bad things, but every one does.. But we don't chop off people's hands

(And yes this will get me alot of flack) But I think Gitmo is a great thing, we are not fighting a normal enemy here.. I've seen the enemy face to face, I've fought him.. We need to use everything in or military and legal power to protect ourselves.

I disagree about the USA Human Rights

Yes, the USA does stupid shit. But more often that not the people in the country are good (the goverment is not). So don't say we violate Human Rights stuff.

I mean that makes as much sense as me calling Europeans wusses, because they didn't fight in the War.

The USA does do some bad things, but every one does.. But we don't chop off people's hands

(And yes this will get me alot of flack) But I think Gitmo is a great thing, we are not fighting a normal enemy here.. I've seen the enemy face to face, I've fought him.. We need to use everything in or military and legal power to protect ourselves.

While I agree with you about Gitmo, and most Americans probably agree with you, there are some Canadians here who will take issue with that.

One more thing.

Alot of you people just hate Bush, which more power to you if that is your cup of tea..

But I resent you saying that my country (USA) is a bad country, or war mongers and Neo-Cons.

I mean I hated Bill Clinton with every fiber in my body, but I was never disrespectful to him or the office he holds.

President Bush is the President, he deserves respect for the office he holds. Even if you disagree with him, he is an elected offical, and is intitled to respect.

NO MATTER WHAT.

I do think that this was a proper and timely ruling. Although, I have to state that in the case of someone like David Milgard (to name one of many), were I to have been in his shoes I would have prefered death to a life of incarceration (and eventual insanity.)

I know that it is not a progressive way of thinking about the issue to say something as such - but honestly that is the way I'd feel. I'd rather die than go through a day of the suffering he endured. I'm simply not sure that the freedom he now 'enjoys' will ever make up for the 23 years he spent in horrid misery. When they put you in for life, thats exactly what they take. :(

I mean I hated Bill Clinton with every fiber in my body, but I was never disrespectful to him or the office he holds.


Met plenty of people in the service who not only hated Bill Clinton, but were disrespectful (out of uniform) as often as they could open their mouths.

I disagree about the USA Human Rights

Yes, the USA does stupid shit. But more often that not the people in the country are good (the goverment is not). So don't say we violate Human Rights stuff.

I mean that makes as much sense as me calling Europeans wusses, because they didn't fight in the War.

The USA does do some bad things, but every one does.. But we don't chop off people's hands

(And yes this will get me alot of flack) But I think Gitmo is a great thing, we are not fighting a normal enemy here.. I've seen the enemy face to face, I've fought him.. We need to use everything in or military and legal power to protect ourselves.

When people say the USA is violating human rights, I doubt very much that more than a very small minority mean "all American people". Certainly in the case of myself, and I'm sure most people, we mean the USA's authorities/government etc.

From the forum, it would seem sometimes Americans are over sensitive towards critisism, and mistakenly take any critisism of anything related to their country as a condemnation of every single American citizen. This is very very very rarely the point made by any poster on here IMHO.

Yeah I do, and it states: THOU SHALT NOT KILL

And yet it condones Capitol Punishment.

Thou shall not kill refers to me killing you because I don't like you. It DOES NOT refer to Capital Punishment.

Here's a challenge for you: find at least one good thing to say about the US, and at least one thing where Canada can improve.
Oh!

I have one!

The U.S. has disneyworld and Canada should get on legalizing marijuana.

And yet it condones Capitol Punishment.

Thou shall not kill refers to me killing you because I don't like you. It DOES NOT refer to Capital Punishment.
The law of your land trumps the word of God?

About the whole Enemy Combatant(sp)

In the Aghanistan War. My Marine Unit was ordered to take an Airfield on the left side of the country(I can't be specific). But our orders were and I quote "Elimate ALL personnel,equipment,and people".

It is easier to do that , then to take prisoners..

Gitmo is good and bad, great for intel. Bad for PR.

To quote an Army Captain "Dead people don't talk"

Hopefully, this will be one of the issues that gets immediately overturned.

Its the Supreme Court. You can't overturn the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can overturn itself.

Wrong.

The President can issue a pardon for a case. Or he can rule on an issue.

and NO ONE. Not even the Supreme Court, can challenge that

Ok, lets not get into Iraq.

Agreed

Frankly as a Former Marine(veteran of Afghanistan). IRAQ was the dumbest mistake of all mistakes in the world!

Your opinion and I welcome it. Frankly it was long overdue but I won't get into that now.

My buddies right now, said they hate us over there.. The "Iraq National Guard" is just an intel post for the insurgents.

My dad is over there and he is saying the polar opposite. I had a cousin in Iraq and he said the polar opposite of what you said. As for the Iraqi National Guard being an intel post for Insurgents, I doubt it considering they are getting massacred along with Civilians by car bombs and homicide bombers.

They hate us, they will never like us. We should leave now.

Most don't hate us. Some yes, most no! As for leaving, not until they are stablized.

Enough about that shit.

Agreed.

As for the "Neo-Cons" I'm a conservative. But not the Bush Religion type.

Since when did Bush get his own religion?

I'm a Economic conservative, and frankly I'm quite upset..

Not surprising. Now do you have something to say on the subject at hand?

Wow

I just got my ass handed to me on a platter

*bows*

I'm defeated
:)

One more thing.

Alot of you people just hate Bush, which more power to you if that is your cup of tea..

But I resent you saying that my country (USA) is a bad country, or war mongers and Neo-Cons.

I mean I hated Bill Clinton with every fiber in my body, but I was never disrespectful to him or the office he holds.

President Bush is the President, he deserves respect for the office he holds. Even if you disagree with him, he is an elected offical, and is intitled to respect.

NO MATTER WHAT.

I agree with every word you said.

Its the Supreme Court. You can't overturn the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can overturn itself.

Red Shift is the compressed light in front of a body moving towards the viewer... and Blue Shift, the extenuated light behind a receding object.

As for the issue at hand

The Death P. should not have an age limit up to that..

In the law, it is the proscutors job to prove guilt, and it is the job of the courts to allow you the chance to go before the judge.

If you are 13 and you mistakenly shoot someone after dropping the gun on the floor, that is not murder..

But like a kid did in Florida, bring a gun to school knowing that you are going to kill someone, That is Murder and should be punished with Captial Punishment

And yet it condones Capitol Punishment.

Thou shall not kill refers to me killing you because I don't like you. It DOES NOT refer to Capital Punishment.
Where does the Bible condone capital punishment?

The law of your land trumps the word of God?

Nothing in the Constitution on Capital Punishment.

Lot of laws regarding murder though and the penalties for it. Federal Murder is still punishable by death. State murder varies from state to state and on who was killed to decide if its a death penalty case or not. Prime example of this is the Scott Peterson Trial. Thanks to state law, the prosecution was able to send this man to death row.

From the forum, it would seem sometimes Americans are over sensitive towards critisism, and mistakenly take any critisism of anything related to their country as a condemnation of every single American citizen. This is very very very rarely the point made by any poster on here IMHO.
I suspect that you're correct about this, but one thing most people who are not raised in the US don't seem to understand is that many Americans have great difficulty separating attacks on the US government, our elected leaders, the flag, etc., from attacks on all Americans. Especially to those of us steeped in the American mythos that we are the Country and the Country is us, most attacks on these symbols and extensions of "we, the people" are viewed as attacks on all of us.

My dad is over there and he is saying the polar opposite. I had a cousin in Iraq and he said the polar opposite of what you said.
Sounds like a bi-polar disease, perhaps they need medical help? :eek:


Originally Posted by Drussia
They hate us, they will never like us. We should leave now.

Most don't hate us. Some yes, most no!
Proof please. Bet you can't prove it?

Its the Supreme Court. You can't overturn the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can overturn itself.
Not quite true. The people, through their elected representatives at State and/or national level, can overturn Supreme Court decisions by passing a law ( if the issue isn't a Constitutional one ), or by amending the Constitution.

I suspect that you're correct about this, but one thing most people who are not raised in the US don't seem to understand is that many Americans have great difficulty separating attacks on the US government, our elected leaders, the flag, etc., from attacks on all Americans. Especially to those of us steeped in the American mythos that we are the Country and the Country is us, most attacks on these symbols and extensions of "we, the people" are viewed as attacks on all of us.

That may be true. If so, it shows the dangers that nationalism can pose towards democracy. But that's a whole seperate debate...

Where does the Bible condone capital punishment?

2 Samuel 21:6 "let seven ofhis male descendants be giventous to be killed and exposed before the Lordat Gibeah of Saul-the Lord's chosen one." So what happened, 7 of Saul's decendants were executed.

After the executions, 2 Samuel 21:14 states "They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul's father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered preayer in behalf of the land."

Also, not this verse but the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth verse, what that verse tells the Israelites is make the punishment fit the crime.

I cannot prove what is happening in Iraq

But Afghanistan they love the USA, they are the nicest people in the world


As for the statement earlier.. I thing American's unlike the rest of the world, take alot of things personnal. It is a great tribute to the country, but it is a weakness in some aspect

I suspect that you're correct about this, but one thing most people who are not raised in the US don't seem to understand is that many Americans have great difficulty separating attacks on the US government, our elected leaders, the flag, etc., from attacks on all Americans. Especially to those of us steeped in the American mythos that we are the Country and the Country is us, most attacks on these symbols and extensions of "we, the people" are viewed as attacks on all of us.
By "extension" do you agree with EVERYTHING that your country does?

By "extension" if you do not agree with everything that your country does, only you as an American can complain about it?

By "extension" you will defend America's "right" to be wrong (even if you agree that they are wrong), if an outside party complains about your governance?

Not quite true. The people, through their elected representatives at State and/or national level, can overturn Supreme Court decisions by passing a law ( if the issue isn't a Constitutional one ), or by amending the Constitution.

True but that is a long and grueling process.

That may be true. If so, it shows the dangers that nationalism can pose towards democracy. But that's a whole seperate debate...
I honestly don't think it has anything to do with nationalism. Nationalism isn't nearly the force in the US that many seem to think it is.

America is more a way of life than it is anything else. Take people from every nation and tribe, every walk of life, most of them rejects from Europe and elsewhere, mix them all together, then give them two things they can believe in as one people: the Constitution and rule of law, and a belief that they can jointly and severally accomplish anything they set their minds to do.

What do you have? The American mythos ... and it's powerful almost beyond belief.

True but that is a long and grueling process.
As it was intended to be, primarily so that a temporarily aroused ( and perhaps temporarily irrational ) majority couldn't roll over minorities.

By "extension" do you agree with EVERYTHING that your country does?

By "extension" if you do not agree with everything that your country does, only you as an American can complain about it?

By "extension" you will defend America's "right" to be wrong (even if you agree that they are wrong), if an outside party complains about your governance?
Good lord no!

Sounds like a bi-polar disease, perhaps they need medical help? :eek:

What are you trying to say here? I call this flamebait.

Proof please. Bet you can't prove it?

Bet you can't prove otherwise. I know some don't like us there. Why do think they keep blowing themselves up as well as the Iraqi civilians and national guard and police forces. However, there are several, who do want us there because we DID get rid of Saddam Hussein and some who don't like the Occupation but they also know that its temporary. All the government has to do is ask us to leave and we will.

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with nationalism. Nationalism isn't nearly the force in the US that many seem to think it is.

America is more a way of life than it is anything else. Take people from every nation and tribe, every walk of life, most of them rejects from Europe and elsewhere, mix them all together, then give them two things they can believe in as one people: the Constitution and rule of law, and a belief that they can jointly and severally accomplish anything they set their minds to do.

What do you have? The American mythos ... and it's powerful almost beyond belief.

Although I can confess that my English knowledge hasn't come across "mythos" before; I have to say your description above sounds to me as just a romantic account of what nationalism is (applied to USA in this case).

The whole Iraq thing..

And this is my reason for not wanting to go..

Basically cause I couldn't go with my buddies.. I was hurt in Feb 2003 in a Motor Vechile accident in Kuwait.. And I couldn't go and fight with my buddies. 15 of which are dead now.

I just wanted to do my part.. I think we are doing the right thing by getting rid of Saddam, but I just wonder about the timing

Look, these 16 and 17 year olds know right from wrong and if they commit a heinous crime such as taking an innocent citizens life, they should face the punishment. And that one guy was right, I'd rather die than spend my years in a Supermax prison. FUCK that.

Although I can confess that my English knowledge hasn't come across "mythos" before; I have to say your description above sounds to me as just a romantic account of what nationalism is (applied to USA in this case).
I use the term "mythos" because, as any rational person will aver, neither individuals nor nations ( even one with the almost incredible resources and power of modern American ) can accomplish everything they set their minds to ... it's just a physical impossibility.

You might make a case for including the American devotion to the Constitution and to each other being a sort of sub-set of nationalism, but I beg to disagree. It's not a devotion to the land or the government or capitalism ( although those are certainly elements ), but a devotion to the ideals of the Republic and to the people who try to make those ideals real.

Read the following stories on juvenile murderers and then tell me these "kids" have a right to live.

Why did Eric kill? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/10/48hours/main660314.shtml?cmp=EM8707)

2 murder a two year old (http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/bulger/) (NOT in the USA!!)

Vermont teens (http://www.karisable.com/ymdart.htm)

A Mother, A Daughter, A Murder (http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/robinsonmurder/index.shtml)

Vampire Cult (http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/120296/vampire.htm)

Gothic murder (http://crimemagazine.com/gothic.htm)

Alberta teen (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/09/taber031009)
One for you Steph and Zepp

Kill, Keys, Money and Jewelry (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/teen_killers/index.html)

Teens kill man over comment (http://www.wpbfnews.com/news/4190776/detail.html?subid=10101641)

Teen killers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/27/national/main219305.shtml)

Manhunt for teen killers (http://www.tricities.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=TRI%2FMGArticle%2FTRI_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031779944787&path=/news/localnews&s=)

Need I remind those that forgot about Columbine? Or the sniper killings in the DC area.

What really gets me are those of you out there who can forgive a teen/adult for killing someone, yet are so willing to kill an unborn child.

At least I support the death penalty for those that have murdered someone in cold blood instead of supporting the death penalty of one that has commited no crime other than being in the uterus of a woman that couldn't keep her legs closed, or a man that wasn't willing to use a condom. (BTW I support abortions in the cases of rape, incest and when it verified by qualified medical docctors that to carry the baby to full term would endanger the life of the baby, mother or both.)

For the Bible thumpers out there that say it supports abolishing the DP, It also says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

The only thing I find wrong about the death penalty, other than the time it takes to actually carry out the sentence, is the manner in which it is carried out. Those sentenced to die should die in the same manner that they killed their victims!!!!

What are you trying to say here? I call this flamebait.
I was just trying to be funny but I guess your sense of humour is not in tune?
Bet you can't prove otherwise.
There you go again, you made a statement, and when I call on you for proof, you ask me to prove the converse. What kind of debating skill is that? Now let's try again?


Originally Posted by Drussia
They hate us, they will never like us. We should leave now.


Originally Posted by Corneliu
Most don't hate us. Some yes, most no!
Now will you admit that you cannot prove that statement, or do you in fact have proof?

The only thing I find wrong about the death penalty, other than the time it takes to actually carry out the sentence, is the manner in which it is carried out. Those sentenced to die should die in the same manner that they killed their victims!!!!
But to what end? Cleaning up the gene pool? Retribution? "Closure" for the victims and their relatives?

I was just trying to be funny but I guess your sense of humour is not in tune?

Not feeling well and I am still a very busy person. Gotta go eat, watch a playoff College BBall game then go bowling! All within 4 hours! LOL! And did I mention that I'm sick?

There you go again, you made a statement, and when I call on you for proof, you ask me to prove the converse. What kind of debating skill is that? Now let's try again?

You have room to talk! Did you answer me in the other thread? oh yea that's right! NO! Answer me and when my dad gets back from the region, I'll see if he'll post something about what is going on over there.

Now will you admit that you cannot prove that statement, or do you in fact have proof?

Can you admit that you can't prove me wrong?

For the Bible thumpers out there that say it supports abolishing the DP, It also says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Since you quote it, perhaps you should read it (http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp)?

The rest of your post intends to inspire anger and hate?

The only thing I find wrong about the death penalty, other than the time it takes to actually carry out the sentence, is the manner in which it is carried out. Those sentenced to die should die in the same manner that they killed their victims!!!!
What is your reward for their penance?

But to what end? Cleaning up the gene pool? Retribution? "Closure" for the victims and their relatives?

Call it a smattering of revenge with the justice.

All I know is that if anyone killed a member of my family, that person wouldn't live long. I would kill him myself if given the oppertunity.

If a person hold another's life with so little value that they took it, they forfeit ALL rights and should expirience that phyisical pain they inflicted on their victim.

To bad there isn't a way to inflict that pain without killing them. I think a more apt punishment might be to inflict the level of pain, then let them live with that memory. Don't know if it would do any good with some of these monsters though.

What I am saying here is why do some of you think that a person who holds so little regard for life that they are willing to take the life of another should be afforded the right to live? Forget laws, I want your personal reasons.

Call it a smattering of revenge with the justice.

All I know is that if anyone killed a member of my family, that person wouldn't live long. I would kill him myself if given the oppertunity.

If a person hold another's life with so little value that they took it, they forfeit ALL rights and should expirience that phyisical pain they inflicted on their victim.

To bad there isn't a way to inflict that pain without killing them. I think a more apt punishment might be to inflict the level of pain, then let them live with that memory. Don't know if it would do any good with some of these monsters though.

What I am saying here is why do some of you think that a person who holds so little regard for life that they are willing to take the life of another should be afforded the right to live? Forget laws, I want your personal reasons.
Since you quoted the Bible, I will too: "Vengence is mine," sayeth the Lord, "I shall repay."

I happen to agree with you about what I would do if someone harmed my family, particularly the little ones, but that's just me. I seriously question society's right to take the life of a juvenile as either justice or vengence. I don't have any real alternatives, but the issue is a very, very difficult one.

Since you quote it, perhaps you should read it (http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp)?

Twelve years of Catholic school, I think I know the Bible well enough.

The rest of your post intends to inspire anger and hate?

Well excuse me for feeling anger and hate toward a "person" who has no respect for the life of innocent people. I suppose you feel that they should be given psychiatric treatment and therapy. FUCK THAT!!!

What is your reward for their penance?

Knowing that they are facing their maker sooner than they would have.

ahhh, the death penalty.

Why The Death Penalty Sucks:

a)If you are about to commit a crime of passion, you will not be thinking at all, much less about the death penalty.

b)If you are a sociopath (and believe you are infallible) or have otherwise planned very carefully not to get caught, you will not be thinking about the death penalty.

c)Punishing someone with the death penalty costs more money than throwing him in jail for life.

d)There have been cases in which innocent people have been punished with the death penalty.

e)The government tells us to respect human life, yet they take it -- great example.

If you really want to punish someone, stick him in a 27-cubic-foot (3x3x3) cell for the rest of his natural life, feed him toenails and North Dakota water.

2 Samuel 21:6 "let seven ofhis male descendants be giventous to be killed and exposed before the Lordat Gibeah of Saul-the Lord's chosen one." So what happened, 7 of Saul's decendants were executed.

After the executions, 2 Samuel 21:14 states "They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul's father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered preayer in behalf of the land."

Also, not this verse but the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth verse, what that verse tells the Israelites is make the punishment fit the crime.

It's the problem that most fundies have with taking New Testament standards ("if you look at another woman with lust in your heart you have commited adultery") and imposing old testament standards ("that person shall be stoned to death"). It's a buffet approach to the bible itself instead of taking it as a whole. "If you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have commited adultery... let he whoever is among you without sin cast the first stone"

Then a little old lady hobbled out of the crowd and hurled a rock right at her head. "MOM, I wish you'd stop doing that!"

And the eye for an eye bit is mitagatory. It is saying that if someone steals your goat all you can do is take a goats worth of stuff away from him, you can't hang him for theft. It is commanding no more than equal punishment, not at least equal punishment. And this was precisly the sort of outmoded thinking that Christ was supposed to correct when he said "if a man strike you upon the cheek then turn to him the other." Unless you're willing to convert to Judaism you can't pick and choose between testaments as you see fit. Even then you have to leave out the New one.

Since you quoted the Bible, I will too: "Vengence is mine," sayeth the Lord, "I shall repay."

I happen to agree with you about what I would do if someone harmed my family, particularly the little ones, but that's just me. I seriously question society's right to take the life of a juvenile as either justice or vengence. I don't have any real alternatives, but the issue is a very, very difficult one.

Your right. The Bible contradicts itself in areas. I'm not going to argue that. I just have a hard time in the concept of allowing a person who holds so little respect for life that he/she is willing to take it away from others. That type of person DOES NOT deserve to live IMO.

Call it a smattering of revenge with the justice.

All I know is that if anyone killed a member of my family, that person wouldn't live long. I would kill him myself if given the oppertunity.

If a person hold another's life with so little value that they took it, they forfeit ALL rights and should expirience that phyisical pain they inflicted on their victim.

To bad there isn't a way to inflict that pain without killing them. I think a more apt punishment might be to inflict the level of pain, then let them live with that memory. Don't know if it would do any good with some of these monsters though.

What I am saying here is why do some of you think that a person who holds so little regard for life that they are willing to take the life of another should be afforded the right to live? Forget laws, I want your personal reasons.
At one point in my life, I would have agreed with most of what you posted here. But I realize now that carrying that much hate and anger is not good for me. A great burden has been lifted off my soul. :)

As far as letting a murderer rot in jail, I believe that punishment (the loss of freedom) is a far greater deterrent than a simple execution. Killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is a morally bankrupt idea in todays push for a more "civilized" society.

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with nationalism. Nationalism isn't nearly the force in the US that many seem to think it is.

America is more a way of life than it is anything else. Take people from every nation and tribe, every walk of life, most of them rejects from Europe and elsewhere, mix them all together, then give them two things they can believe in as one people: the Constitution and rule of law, and a belief that they can jointly and severally accomplish anything they set their minds to do.

What do you have? The American mythos ... and it's powerful almost beyond belief.

And a belief that all these foreigners are ruining our way of life and that we need to impose strict limits on imigration because they're just taking our jobs.

Oh!

I have one!

The U.S. has disneyworld and Canada should get on legalizing marijuana.

Ooh. I have another.

America has shopping that's really cheap when adjusted for the plummeting price of our currency and Canada's low crime rate makes surviving a trip on public transportation an experience bereft of any sense of accomplishment.

So, does this do anything about the problem of adult gang members hiring juveniles to do their killing for them?

Yes. You treat the adult as the murderer and the juvinile as the accessory.

It doesn't have to be written into the law for the prosecuter to use it that way.

Read the following stories on juvenile murderers and then tell me these "kids" have a right to live.

Why did Eric kill? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/10/48hours/main660314.shtml?cmp=EM8707)

2 murder a two year old (http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/bulger/) (NOT in the USA!!)

Vermont teens (http://www.karisable.com/ymdart.htm)

A Mother, A Daughter, A Murder (http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/robinsonmurder/index.shtml)

Vampire Cult (http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/120296/vampire.htm)

Gothic murder (http://crimemagazine.com/gothic.htm)

Alberta teen (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/09/taber031009)
One for you Steph and Zepp

Kill, Keys, Money and Jewelry (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/teen_killers/index.html)

Teens kill man over comment (http://www.wpbfnews.com/news/4190776/detail.html?subid=10101641)

Teen killers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/27/national/main219305.shtml)

Manhunt for teen killers (http://www.tricities.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=TRI%2FMGArticle%2FTRI_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031779944787&path=/news/localnews&s=)

Need I remind those that forgot about Columbine? Or the sniper killings in the DC area.

What really gets me are those of you out there who can forgive a teen/adult for killing someone, yet are so willing to kill an unborn child.

At least I support the death penalty for those that have murdered someone in cold blood instead of supporting the death penalty of one that has commited no crime other than being in the uterus of a woman that couldn't keep her legs closed, or a man that wasn't willing to use a condom. (BTW I support abortions in the cases of rape, incest and when it verified by qualified medical docctors that to carry the baby to full term would endanger the life of the baby, mother or both.)

For the Bible thumpers out there that say it supports abolishing the DP, It also says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

The only thing I find wrong about the death penalty, other than the time it takes to actually carry out the sentence, is the manner in which it is carried out. Those sentenced to die should die in the same manner that they killed their victims!!!!

See, retribution is a horrible reason to do anything. The death penalty simply has no logical foundation. It's all about revenge.

And a belief that all these foreigners are ruining our way of life and that we need to impose strict limits on imigration because they're just taking our jobs.

sure I agree with imposing limits on immigration but not strict ones. America is a country of mixed heritage's, and if you're from America, then your ancestors were once an immigrants too. The immigrants that come in usually end up taking the minimum wage jobs unless they're being relocated from one country to another.

The expense of execution is primarily the expense of inordinately long trials, regardless of how clear the evidence may be.

There should be an express lane for people who commit their crimes and the evidence contains two or more of the following proofs:
1) Video evidence
2) DNA evidence
3) Ballistic evidence

30 days to final appeal.

Problem with DNA evidence is that prosecuters are almost all opposed to its use in trials. It makes it too easy for defendants to prove their innocence. If this is the sort of political manuvering that's going on in trials then how can you have enough faith in the process to let it take people's lives?

Read the following stories on juvenile murderers and then tell me these "kids" have a right to live.

Alberta teen (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/09/taber031009)
One for you Steph and Zepp

It's really quite irrelevant in Canada. We don't have the death penalty for any one. I'm very proud of that.

One more thing.

Alot of you people just hate Bush, which more power to you if that is your cup of tea..

But I resent you saying that my country (USA) is a bad country, or war mongers and Neo-Cons.

I mean I hated Bill Clinton with every fiber in my body, but I was never disrespectful to him or the office he holds.

President Bush is the President, he deserves respect for the office he holds. Even if you disagree with him, he is an elected offical, and is intitled to respect.

NO MATTER WHAT.

You're absolutly right. If I ever met that semi-retarded irredeemably corrupt worthless excuse for a human being I would still call him Mr. President.

Its the Supreme Court. You can't overturn the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can overturn itself.

"The 5-4 ruling of today becomes the 4-5 ruling of tommorow and then before you know it, it's back in the closet with butt-sex" --America: the Book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drussia
One more thing.

Alot of you people just hate Bush, which more power to you if that is your cup of tea..

But I resent you saying that my country (USA) is a bad country, or war mongers and Neo-Cons.

I mean I hated Bill Clinton with every fiber in my body, but I was never disrespectful to him or the office he holds.

President Bush is the President, he deserves respect for the office he holds. Even if you disagree with him, he is an elected offical, and is intitled to respect.

NO MATTER WHAT.


You're absolutly right. If I ever met that semi-retarded irredeemably corrupt worthless excuse for a human being I would still call him Mr. President.

That's some of the best respect I've seen for America yet.

"The 5-4 ruling of today becomes the 4-5 ruling of tommorow and then before you know it, it's back in the closet with butt-sex" --America: the Book.
I just bought that book two days ago!
[/threadjack]

For anyone who cared to follow the case, it has been illegal to execute anyone under the age of 16 in the US since 1990 I believe. This ruling was for 16 and 17 year olds. When you were 16 or 17, I'm sure you would not consider yourself "a child" so the entire topic sentence of this thread is a large load of hogwash.

The fact of the matter is, that at 16 or 17, you CAN tell the difference between right or wrong, even with the whole "teenagers are emotional, emotional beings!". Honestly, if one commits a crime at 17 years and 364 days, they cannot be executed, but 24 hours later? I support the death penalty fully. And for those who say it is merely vengence, I say vengence is a part of justice, and justice is what these bastards should get.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't bother with 19 years on death row (especially with today's DNA evidence) I'd say a maximum of 2-4 years, as many appeals as you can logically pack into those four years should you wish, then either a firing squad or a length of rope. That should put the fear of God into a large number of criminals, indeed, the US crime rate would be even higher were it not for the death penalty.

For the Bible thumpers out there that say it supports abolishing the DP, It also says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

The only thing I find wrong about the death penalty, other than the time it takes to actually carry out the sentence, is the manner in which it is carried out. Those sentenced to die should die in the same manner that they killed their victims!!!!

Um, you're saying that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that if you're accused of a crime you will permit them to dispense with your efforts at a thorough defense because if you were the accuser you'd want to kill them as soon as possible?

I have to say, that would be remakably selfless of you. In fact you would literally be 'without self." But I think in this case it would apply more accuratly to the accuser. If you're accusing someone of a crime you should put yourself in their place and ask yourself "If I were being accused of a crime would I want my accuser to appraise my evidence with an open mind and even if convinced that I commited the act would I want them to consider the situation I was in and what it would take to drive them to commit such a crime?"

That's why Jesus said that bit about not throwing any stones until you can find somone without sin to condemn the accused. You're no saint yourself, and if you are in favor of the state killing people what would it take to drive you to kill someone yourself and how harshly do you think the state should judge you if you were pushed to that degree?

Note that some prosecuters have argued that self defense is not a valid defense unless you "knew" you were going to die, and since you didn't die then you couldn't have known you would, so you commited murder.

I just bought that book two days ago!
[/threadjack]

got it for Christmas but haven't read much of it yet. :(

/jack

and haha yeah I would shake the Presidents hand but I would shudder as I did so and wash my hand right away hoping that the evil didnt soak in yet.

that reminds me of when Pres Clinton cam to Iwoa and was walkign down the street I worked on at the time in Cedar Rapids (Czech Village), I told the boss I wanted to pull my hand away just as he reached for it and leave him hanging (hopefully for a great photo that would make headlines), so he made me stay inside. lol

Since you quoted the Bible, I will too: "Vengence is mine," sayeth the Lord, "I shall repay."
Now for the whole quote:

Romans 12

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

Kinda gives a different import to the meaning?

Great. Now we have to support the degenerates for 70 years instead of just 20.

I don't know if this has been adressed yet, but people keep saying stuff like this and I would like to make it clear that, first, an execution costs more to perform than supporting an inmate for the rest of his life (including the legal fees involved, an execution costs an average of $3,000,000 in the US. Housing a prisoner for 70 years, on the other hand, costs around $800,000.), and, second, that death should not be decided on because of economics. By that logic, shouldn't we kill the handicapped, since it would save money not to build wheelchair ramps?

How someone old enough to drive an automobile and risk their life in defense of their country a "child"? Your usage of the word is absolute nonsense.

Now for the whole quote:

Romans 12

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

Kinda gives a different import to the meaning?
You are correct. I was quoting from memory. Sorry about that! :(

You're absolutly right. If I ever met that semi-retarded irredeemably corrupt worthless excuse for a human being I would still call him Mr. President.
How very ... disengenuous of you! :rolleyes:

How someone old enough to drive an automobile and risk their life in defense of their country a "child"? Your usage of the word is absolute nonsense.

How is someone who has restrictions on who they can have sex with, cannot drink, and cannot vote an "adult"?

And isn't the minimum age for the US military 18 years old?

How is someone who has restrictions on who they can have sex with, cannot drink, and cannot vote an "adult"?

And isn't the minimum age for the US military 18 years old?
17, with parental consent.

How someone old enough to drive an automobile and risk their life in defense of their country a "child"? Your usage of the word is absolute nonsense.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are required to be 18 before serving on active duty in the US military.

However, if you are going to compare driving a car to when it is acceptible to put people to death, then perhaps we should just start at kindergarden as by that point children are expected to follow a set of rules of behaviour or face consequences?

the argument on when a child becomes an adult is a difficult one, however I would postulate that if you aren't deemed old enough to be trusted to have the wisdom to have be able to understand the ramifications that may affect into your future by voting then you shouldn't be deemed old enough to have the wisdom to truly understand the consequences of all of your actions before the law in all other matters as well.

17, with parental consent.

My mistake. It turns out the US is out of step with international opinion on this matter, if this Human Rights Watch article (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/cswrkgp.htm) still describes current policy.

It also gives the number of 17 year-olds in the US military as fewer than 3000.

My mistake. It turns out the US is out of step with international opinion on this matter, if this Human Rights Watch article (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/cswrkgp.htm) still describes current policy.

It also gives the number of 17 year-olds in the US military as fewer than 3000.

Speaking as a parent, I can't imagine in the world we live in today many parents allowing their 17 year old kids to join the army. That would be insane!

Speaking as a parent, I can't imagine in the world we live in today many parents allowing their 17 year old kids to join the army. That would be insane!

I do suspect you're not a particularly good representative of the average US parent, to be honest.

Well I certainly wouldnt let my 17 year old join the service.

I do suspect you're not a particularly good representative of the average US parent, to be honest.

Well what are you saying? The average US parent would give consent to have their kid killed in a war that has nothing to do with defending America? That's not insane?

My mistake. It turns out the US is out of step with international opinion on this matter, if this Human Rights Watch article (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/cswrkgp.htm) still describes current policy.

It also gives the number of 17 year-olds in the US military as fewer than 3000.
Well, that should provide occasion for all the anti-Americans on here to throw more stones. In many of the "developing nations," children as young as ten and even seven are pressed into service by so-called "national liberation" movements. So far as I know, the "17 years with parental consent" rule has been in effect in the US ever since the Civil War.

Well I certainly wouldnt let my 17 year old join the service.

That's why they have the draft.

Well, that should provide occasion for all the anti-Americans on here to throw more stones. In many of the "developing nations," children as young as ten and even seven are pressed into service by so-called "national liberation" movements. So far as I know, the "17 years with parental consent" rule has been in effect in the US ever since the Civil War.

All bickering aside Eutrusca, you can't agree with that?

That's why they have the draft.


can they draft a 17 year old?

can they draft a 17 year old?

They have never, no. 18, yes.

Well what are you saying? The average US parent would give consent to have their kid killed in a war that has nothing to do with defending America? That's not insane?
As usual, your outrage is dependent upon your preconcieved notions. I raised my own children to be capable of making their own decisions. If one of them requested my permission at age 17 to join the US military, I would do my best to talk them out of it. But, since my children were effectively adults at 17, or even earlier, had they insisted, I would have given my written permission.

Well what are you saying? The average US parent would give consent to have their kid killed in a war that has nothing to do with defending America? That's not insane?

Oh no, I agree with you entirely. I just don't think your opinion is completely representative of parents in another country.

can they draft a 17 year old?
There is no draft.

can they draft a 17 year old?

Anyone can be drafted. That's why it's a draft. In the UK during WWII, the induction age was lowered from 19 to 17.5.

If china becomes a massive millitary power it could happen here.

There is no draft.

Yet.

There will be; unless something is done about SE asia.

Yet.

There will be; unless something is done about SE asia.
There is no draft, there will be no draft, the draft is an anachronism.

There is no draft, there will be no draft

You don't know that and either does any one else. Except the powers that be.

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.




About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.

Finally... Now all we need is for the US (and other countries) to stop killing adults.

Finally... Now all we need is for the US (and other countries) to stop killing adults.

Here, here!

hey Poppy! :)


on the subject:
I guess I just have a problem with someone as young as 17-20 being in the position to have to kill or be killed. War is ugly enough as it is, and most adolecents dont have the metal or emotional capacity to handle that. Heck, neither do most adults. I dont understand war. I never have and never will. Why do so many have to die in order for the world to operate? I mean no disrespect to servicemen or veterans. Please dont get me wrong. I am only saying it is such a tragedy that so many civilians and soldiers have died thoughout the history of war.

You don't know that and either does any one else. Except the powers that be.
[ goes around pinning "Powers That Be" on the chests of all voting age Americans ] I agree. :)

There is no draft, there will be no draft, the draft is an anachronism.

I hardly think so.

Will there be a draft in the next five years - unlikely.

I don't think you can rule it out in the next twenty.

[ goes around pinning "Powers That Be" on the chests of all voting age Americans ] I agree. :)

I know we have our differences Eutrusca, but I also have to believe that you would not be so foolish to believe that the government always does what the people want, even in democracies.

hey Poppy! :)


on the subject:
I guess I just have a problem with someone as young as 17-20 being in the position to have to kill or be killed. War is ugly enough as it is, and most adolecents dont have the metal or emotional capacity to handle that. Heck, neither do most grown ups. I dont understand war. I never have and never will. Why do so many have to die in order for the world to operate? I mean no disrespect to servicemen or veterans. Please dont get me wrong. I am only saying it is such a tragedy that so many civilians and soldiers have died.

If anything it is the other way around. Men who are first inducted into the military later in life find the transistion much more difficult. Also they are more difficult to train to kill complete strangers, which, after all, is the point.

hey Poppy! :)


on the subject:
I guess I just have a problem with someone as young as 17-20 being in the position to have to kill or be killed. War is ugly enough as it is, and most adolecents dont have the metal or emotional capacity to handle that. Heck, neither do most grown ups. I dont understand war. I never have and never will. Why do so many have to die in order for the world to operate? I mean no disrespect to servicemen or veterans. Please dont get me wrong. I am only saying it is such a tragedy that so many civilians and soldiers have died.
Hon, I couldn't agree more! I have seen and done things I wouldn't ask my worst enemy to do or see. The thought that my own children or grandchildren might have to face those same things is terrifying to me. Yet, I raised them to be courageous and to cultivate an attitude of service. It will be up to them to decide what that means in practice.

War is the enivitable consequence of human nature. Until human nature changes, we will most likely continue having wars. At this juncture in history, the best defense against those who would conquer, ravage, steal and destroy is a strong America. I know there are many on here who take violent issue with that position. So be it. But America's position in the world serves as a restraint upon those who would happily conquer and rule, or kill. Until someone comes up with a better way, I will continue to support Her in whatever small way I can.

If anything it is the other way around. Men who are first inducted into the military later in life find the transistion much more difficult. Also they are more difficult to train to kill complete strangers, which, after all, is the point.

Which is why child armies are so effective where they're used. It's far easier to brainwash children into hating your opponent of choice, which allows you to convince them to do essentially anything for your cause.

BTW, I'm not saying all armies brainwash their soldiers. I'm saying child armies do. There is, necessarily, an element of molding the soldier's psyche to make them useful for any combat, but the scale is completely different.

I know we have our differences Eutrusca, but I also have to believe that you would not be so foolish to believe that the government always does what the people want, even in democracies.
Of course not, but the government which consistently ignores or flouts the will of the people will eventually suffer the consequences.

<stupidposton>

Which is precisely why orphans/homelesschildren/etc., should be sent to military programs for the duration of their life.

It gives them focus, an education, money, a home, family, etc.

So what if they grow up as killing machines? The alternative isn't too great.

</stupidposton>

Wow. That was the most conservative thing I've said. It felt invigorating.

Actually, going back to the death penalty (being this thread was hijacked), I think that the death penalty should be eliminated. And not because I'm liberal.

I think, that in the cases of undeniable evidence, the government should reform individuals--1984 style. Killing an individual gives no justice, and one piece of society is lost forever. However, if we can 'Room 101' an individual until he feels nothing but absolute loyalty to the state, then he can go back and be a contributing member of that state.

Needless to say, that is a cruel AND unusual punishment.

Needless to say, that is a cruel AND unusual punishment.

I believe the Supreme Court decided (a couple of centuries ago) that a punishment need not be cruel AND unusual to be unconstitutional. Overly cruel was deemed to be sufficient.

(not entirely related to your post, but it was discussed earlier)

I hardly think so.

Will there be a draft in the next five years - unlikely.

I don't think you can rule it out in the next twenty.

I tend to agree.

The circumstances, in the US at least, would have to be very strenuous. A draft is a very unpopular idea. It's much like the second third-rail in US politics (the first being Social Security): you touch it--you die. People don't want to be forced into war. Who would?

Then again, the Bush administration is pushing towards privatizing Social Security, apparently without the traditional fear one would assume from such a topic. So, I suppose a draft, such a taboo today, is possible at some time in the future, given certain circumstances at large, attitudes in the then-current administration and willingness in congress. Yes, perhaps in 20 years there would be another draft. I don't know how likely it would be, but yeah, I don't think it can be logically ruled out.

IT took a while, but effective immediately the US is no longer in the business of executing their own children (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty) as they overturned the law that allowed 16 and 17-year olds to face execution for some crimes.




About damn time, and kudos to the Supreme Court on this issue.
And ironically in lgiht of Corneliu's opinion, I must disagree.

What kind of crimes earn people the death penalty? Homicide.
And what will these kids be getting instead of the death penalty? The rest of their lifetime in jail. 16 and 17 are barely under the legal age and if an 18 year old counts as adults, 16 year olds, if no 15, can and should be tried as adults for certain crimes and be issued the exact same punishments, especially if it is the death penalty and been rightfully handed out. I was discussing this before global studies today: not only do they have nothing to base this on but their entire reason for doing it is so full of shit I want to slap myself in the head.

How is someone who has restrictions on who they can have sex with, cannot drink, and cannot vote an "adult"?

And isn't the minimum age for the US military 18 years old?

17 if your parents sign the release form.

If anything it is the other way around. Men who are first inducted into the military later in life find the transistion much more difficult. Also they are more difficult to train to kill complete strangers, which, after all, is the point.

It's more difficult to train them period. Military training is designed to tear down a person's personality and replace it with that of a soldier. It is easiest to do to teenagers, but if they tried enlisting 15 and 16 year olds there'd be an outcry. So they aim for 18 and 19 year olds because their minds are the most pliable and their brains are still developing (not growing per se, but developing). It's like an emotional footbinding.

If they brought in too many 20 and 25 year olds at the same time they'd have a morale problem as those enlitees would keep undermining the conditioning of the younger more pliable troops. All manner of things could happen. The military might even find itself with some democrats .

Well, that should provide occasion for all the anti-Americans on here to throw more stones. In many of the "developing nations," children as young as ten and even seven are pressed into service by so-called "national liberation" movements. So far as I know, the "17 years with parental consent" rule has been in effect in the US ever since the Civil War.

We have the exact same thing here. We call it 'street gangs.'

Wasn't this thread about the damn Supreme Court decision regarding capital punishment of children, NOT about military recruitment there of?

Make your own damn topic.

It's more difficult to train them period. Military training is designed to tear down a person's personality and replace it with that of a soldier. It is easiest to do to teenagers, but if they tried enlisting 15 and 16 year olds there'd be an outcry. So they aim for 18 and 19 year olds because their minds are the most pliable and their brains are still developing (not growing per se, but developing). It's like an emotional footbinding.

If they brought in too many 20 and 25 year olds at the same time they'd have a morale problem as those enlitees would keep undermining the conditioning of the younger more pliable troops. All manner of things could happen. The military might even find itself with some democrats .

20-25 year olds do not pose much of a problem either insofar as adapting to military discipline is concerned; although they tend to be more cautious soldiers (even if they are inducted during their teenage years).

Disicpline problems arise from men who are in their late twenties/early thirties. This is because they come from an environment where they are used to living alone under their own rules, are often married, and have achieved a modicum of responsibility and expertise in their chosen profession. For them, the total loss of status and forced submission to millitary disicpline - especially the paternalistic nature of the armed forces - is too much to deal with and thus they cause moral and disicpline problems. Naturally, the same conditions do not pertain with teenagers and those in thier early twenties who invariably live at home tied to "mommy's" apron strings. (Though looking at todays populace, I imagine there are many individuals in their thirties who still live at home and rely upon mommy for advice and structure thus making them still capable an easy transistion to millitary life).

One solution to the problem of older inducties is to give them fake rank during basic training, and thus fooling them into thinking that their "real" world experience counts for something. It doesn't of course, but they are usually so self impressed by "deserving" this honor, they actually begin to believe that they are "part" of the millitary system, they stop causing moral problems.

I'm too tired to read all of the posts, so please forgive me if I repeat someone else. The decision that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment for children is long past due. Maybe someday they will come to realize that it is also cruel and unusual punishment for adults. Our government's responsibility is to protect us from others wishing to do harm. Rather than put some of them to death, why not make people stay in prison for the entire term of their sentence? If you get life, you stay locked up until you die. The people in the states that allow the death sentence may be willing to do away with it if they know that the criminals won't get out for "good behavior" in a few years. A man was wrongly executed 2000 years ago...haven't we learned anything since then?

The cost of supporting the inmates is an argument for early parole and execution. The truth is, the cost of appeals and the actual execution is greater than if they kept the person in prison for over 300 years. We also need to look at the "perks" that inames receive. Cable television is mandatory in a number of states, varied and palatable meals are mandated, as is telephone privileges, dental and medical care on demand, legal aid for frivilous suits, and educational opportunities. Some of these people have more benefits in prison than out...and more than some of their victims. If you have a roof over your head, a clean bed, food in your belly, and the opportunity to earn a living, you are doing better than a majority of the world's population.

yes... wonderful idea. I'm sure John malvo had no idea what he was doing when he gunned down what, ten people? He must have been too young and innocent to appreciate the consequences of the rifle round piercing flesh and bone while he hunted people down through a scope and eluded police. Obviously, such a tender young criminal was simply unable to comprehend what he did... ten times over. Maybe he's just misunderstood... but that was nothing a shot of Pancuronium Bromide, and Potassium Cholride wouldn't fix (or even better yet, a couple lengths of rope and a gallows).
No more death penalty for malvo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20050302/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_malvo)

It was already illegal to execute those under 15... this just upped the age. now tell me, what 16-17 year old cannot comprehend the consequences of his/her actions? And don't say a mentally ill one, as their executions were barred 2 years ago. They want to act like adults, commit crimes like adults, and then be punished as children. How disgusting... Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I guess what a song once said, is that much closer to being true... "if you're under eighteen, you won't be doing any time." Maybe we shouldn't punish minors at all... let's just arm them and give them a license to kill. And then when they do kill someone, send them to the corner for a "time-out."

At least 4 Justices had the sense of mind to dissent... and hopefully, they'll get the last laugh once the court packing really begins after the next few retirements.

At least 4 Justices had the sense of mind to dissent... and hopefully, they'll get the last laugh once the court packing really begins after the next few retirements.
Which is as much a threat to law , order, and intelligence as having those people who ruled in favor of this on the bench.

Last time I checked these "Kids" where in jail or being executed for takeing someones life. I have a 18 and a 17 year old and believe me they know the differance of right and wrong.

They knew that at 14. We have differing level of classification of murder and the punishments to match them. For these kids to have gotten the death sentance, assigned by a jury now days, they would have had to had commit the killing in a preplanned or extremely grusome fashion.

Remember this fact before you jump on the thought that "kids" are being killed. Far from the fact. Age is not a proper determination of maturity, ones actions are.

Yep, age is a poor way to determine someone's maturity, it simply looks bad to people who have not been touched by the crime to execute a "child".
Still, I say get rid of prisons, bring back mobile work gangs and get some public good out of criminals. Execute to eliminate a monster, not prevent or deter further crime.

I don't believe any one is saying they shouldn't be punished. But death is not a reasonable punishment. If we kill people for killing people we are no better than them.

I don't believe any one is saying they shouldn't be punished. But death is not a reasonable punishment. If we kill people for killing people we are no better than them.
Perhaps you can enlighten us with your opinion of what a "reasonable" punishment is for someone who commits murder? Who are you to decide for the rest of the nation what is an appropriate punishment anyway?

So it is ok to burden the rest of a nation with increasing taxes to keep someone locked up, fed, warm and dry? These killers will never contribute to society in anyway.

A jury of their peers assigns the death sentence to individuals. Believe me that is not an easy decision for anyone to make. Even if the person on the stand is a cold blooded killer let alone a underaged killer.

If someone were to take one of my family away from me in a cold blooded act, there is no way that I could be consoled let alone be convinced that I will be paying to feed, provide medical care, and shelter the killed of a member of my family. I don't know how anyone could deal with that.

Let not forget about the victims and their families who deserve closeure and retribution. That is why they are allowed to speak at the sentencing.

This is an absolute outrage they cannot punish 16,17 year olds for multiple murders. If they do a grown up crime. Pay the grown up price.

Supreme court is wrong again!

I'm too tired to read all of the posts, so please forgive me if I repeat someone else. The decision that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment for children is long past due. Maybe someday they will come to realize that it is also cruel and unusual punishment for adults. Our government's responsibility is to protect us from others wishing to do harm. Rather than put some of them to death, why not make people stay in prison for the entire term of their sentence? If you get life, you stay locked up until you die. The people in the states that allow the death sentence may be willing to do away with it if they know that the criminals won't get out for "good behavior" in a few years. A man was wrongly executed 2000 years ago...haven't we learned anything since then?

The cost of supporting the inmates is an argument for early parole and execution. The truth is, the cost of appeals and the actual execution is greater than if they kept the person in prison for over 300 years. We also need to look at the "perks" that inames receive. Cable television is mandatory in a number of states, varied and palatable meals are mandated, as is telephone privileges, dental and medical care on demand, legal aid for frivilous suits, and educational opportunities. Some of these people have more benefits in prison than out...and more than some of their victims. If you have a roof over your head, a clean bed, food in your belly, and the opportunity to earn a living, you are doing better than a majority of the world's population.
For the most part, I have to agree with what you have posted here. ;)

The only significant difference, is that in Canada, many murderers are rehabilitated and end up back in society as productive members, while others are definded as "dangerous offenders", such as your Charlie Manson, and they will never get out.

So it is ok to burden the rest of a nation with increasing taxes to keep someone locked up, fed, warm and dry? These killers will never contribute to society in anyway.

A jury of their peers assigns the death sentence to individuals. Believe me that is not an easy decision for anyone to make. Even if the person on the stand is a cold blooded killer let alone a underaged killer.

If someone were to take one of my family away from me in a cold blooded act, there is no way that I could be consoled let alone be convinced that I will be paying to feed, provide medical care, and shelter the killed of a member of my family. I don't know how anyone could deal with that.

Let not forget about the victims and their families who deserve closeure and retribution. That is why they are allowed to speak at the sentencing.
As has been stated many times:

The death penalty is enormously costly (http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html), strains the budgets of both state and local governments and diverts funds from more effective crime control strategies and victim assistance programs. This is true in all jurisdictions regardless of state statute. The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied. And this enormous cost is borne by the taxpayers for a crime control policy that only makes violent crime worse.

Also from the same article, among other good points:

The death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No evidence supporting either a general deterrent or a specific deterrent impact exists and no evidence supporting an incapacitation impact exists. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

Wouldn't it be better to send the perpetrator to jail for a long, long, time?

I'm a very strong supporter of the death penalty.

This is outrages. If kids are dumb enough to commit a murder then they should get the death penalty! Nobody should get shortcuts through life, no matter what age they are. Anyone who commits a murder, that person should get death himself!

"A eye for a eye."

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

As has been stated many times:

The death penalty is enormously costly (http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html), strains the budgets of both state and local governments and diverts funds from more effective crime control strategies and victim assistance programs. This is true in all jurisdictions regardless of state statute. The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied. And this enormous cost is borne by the taxpayers for a crime control policy that only makes violent crime worse.

Also from the same article, among other good points:

The death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No evidence supporting either a general deterrent or a specific deterrent impact exists and no evidence supporting an incapacitation impact exists. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

Wouldn't it be better to send the perpetrator to jail for a long, long, time?
It would be better to correct the legal process that gives the criminals appeal after appeal, wasting time and money. Shoot them dead, and give their family the bill for the cost of the bullet.

As has been stated many times:

The death penalty is enormously costly (http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html), strains the budgets of both state and local governments and diverts funds from more effective crime control strategies and victim assistance programs. This is true in all jurisdictions regardless of state statute. The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied. And this enormous cost is borne by the taxpayers for a crime control policy that only makes violent crime worse.

Also from the same article, among other good points:

The death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No evidence supporting either a general deterrent or a specific deterrent impact exists and no evidence supporting an incapacitation impact exists. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

Wouldn't it be better to send the perpetrator to jail for a long, long, time?

No

1) These figures have been inflated somewhere. Life in prison is paying for food, board, space, utilities etc. I want to know what factors they are including. Do they include the cost of having to build new jails due to overpopulation? Do they include the lengthy and costly appeals processes in the calculation of the death penalty number? AND do they add in the length of time a person is in prison, YEARS, while awaiting the death penalty?
AND The fact that just the TRIALS are costing more for capital punishment cases being more than life in prison cases states there are either some biased numbers in their calculation or some major problems in the system resulting in stupid costs.

2) China seems to be doing OK with executing criminals. Execute criminals who are DEFINATELY the people who commited the crime WITHOUT putting them on death row and without any ability to appeal, then advertise the fact that we kill people. There you go, death penalty starts helping. Right now the entire system is a joke.

It would be better to correct the legal process that gives the criminals appeal after appeal, wasting time and money. Shoot them dead, and give their family the bill for the cost of the bullet.
I wholeheartedly disagree (http://www.ncadp.org/html/fact4.html).

I guess you all know that, but I'd like to remind you again:

The most important reason for punishment is the prevention of crimes. Unfortunately this is often misunderstood. The fact that we lock away / execute a criminal is the smallest part of prevention.

More important is the general and special prevention. (as follows)

Special prevention means that the person found guilty of a crime is prevented from doing it again. Your whole country seems to have misunderstood this. If somebody is executed, he / she can indeed not commit the same crime again, but the overall goal of special prevention is to resozialise the criminal, in order to release him into society, knowing that he won't commit a crime again. (you can't really know that for sure, but the percentage of former criminals who have officially been resocialised but commit a crime again despite of their resocialisation is very low)

General prevention means to secure the society. Security can only be guaranteed if criminals are removed (not executed. Imprissionment is also a possible form of removing somebody from society) from society. This does obviousely prevent the criminal from doing it again, but that's not yet the complete meaning of general prevention.
General prevention also means giving an example. If you never have heared about punishments, you are more likely to commit a crime. If you have heared about it, but never been told about concrete examples, you still could do it. If you know the (most important) laws and are aware that there are punishmentson not following them AND know about people who violated the law and have therefor have been punished, violation seems much more risky. Therefor, fewer people violate the laws.

These points are not just my oppinion, but official reasons for punishment.
Now my oppinion:

If imprisionment seems more cruel than execution (what it sometimes can be) it is a much more convincing example for society.

If somebody is executed, nobody can 'awake' him / her again, if he / she turns out to be innocent. If somebody is imprisioned, releasing him / her from prison is indeed possible. The principe of 'nulla poena sine culpa' is unfortunately not executable, as humans make mistakes and can therefor sentence somebody for a crime he didn't commit.

No

1) These figures have been inflated somewhere. Life in prison is paying for food, board, space, utilities etc. I want to know what factors they are including. Do they include the cost of having to build new jails due to overpopulation? Do they include the lengthy and costly appeals processes in the calculation of the death penalty number? AND do they add in the length of time a person is in prison, YEARS, while awaiting the death penalty?
AND The fact that just the TRIALS are costing more for capital punishment cases being more than life in prison cases states there are either some biased numbers in their calculation or some major problems in the system resulting in stupid costs.
You could try reading the article or doing some research on your own?

2) China seems to be doing OK with executing criminals. Execute criminals who are DEFINATELY the people who commited the crime WITHOUT putting them on death row and without any ability to appeal, then advertise the fact that we kill people. There you go, death penalty starts helping. Right now the entire system is a joke.
Do you like being lumped in with oppressive regimes in regards to the manner of dealing with capital punishment (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html)? You have some fine company, including North Korea, Iran, Uganda, Somalia, Sudan, etc.

You could try reading the article or doing some research on your own?

Do you like being lumped in with oppressive regimes in regards to the manner of dealing with capital punishment (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html)? You have some fine company, including North Korea, Iran, Uganda, Somalia, Sudan, etc.
Your point being what? Killing people who have indisputably been convicted of the murder with irrefutable proof should be put to death, none of this deathrow or appeals shit. Oh yeah, and nice logical fallacy there

And the article does NOT say which numbers are included in the costs

Your point being what? Killing people who have indisputably been convicted of the murder with irrefutable proof should be put to death, none of this deathrow or appeals shit. Oh yeah, and nice logical fallacy there

And the article does NOT say which numbers are included in the costs
I think it is very logical to assume that more civilzed countries naturally progress to a society where there is no killing? I think it is fallacy to expect to command respect if you continue to kill people to prove that killing is wrong.

As has been stated many times:

The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied.

The death penalty has no deterrent value to society.

Wouldn't it be better to send the perpetrator to jail for a long, long, time?

My answer... No.

1. Executions wouldn't cost so much if we change the way we do them. Why not just hang the criminals. That would be almost free of cost.

2. The death penalty has no deterent value, because it isn't being used enough. Only in rare cases, and that needs to change. If the death penalty was used for every criminal guilty of violent crimes. You would see the crime rate drop down fast, and if it didn't go down we would be killing these idoits that keep causing trouble then the crime rate would have to go down.

3. Our prisons are getting too full. The fastest and cheapest way to make more room is by using the death penalty. If we change how we do the executions.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

I think it is very logical to assume that more civilzed countries naturally progress to a society where there is no killing? I think it is fallacy to expect to command respect if you continue to kill people to prove that killing is wrong.
And its logical to assume that civilized countries will progress to the supporting of their general populace instead of discriminating against them because of their situation instead of helpng them because of it.

No, its a fallacy to try and say my perspective is wrong because "bad countries" do it too. I'm not saying kill to prove that killing is wrong, I'm saying stop playing games with the system and make it work so it IS a deterrent to crime. If there is irrefutable proof some one killed some one else with pre-meditation, screw deathrow, screw appeals, put him in a car to wherever they are going to kill him.

My answer... No.

1. Executions wouldn't cost so much if we change the way we do them. Why not just hang the criminals. That would be almost free of cost.

2. The death penalty has no deterent value, because it isn't being used enough. Only in rare cases, and that needs to change. If the death penalty was used for every criminal guilty of violent crimes. You would see the crime rate drop down fast, and if it didn't go down we would be killing these idoits that keep causing trouble then the crime rate would have to go down.

3. Our prisons are getting too full. The fastest and cheapest way to make more room is by using the death penalty. If we change how we do the executions.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh
A little short on fire stokers down there in Hades?

And its logical to assume that civilized countries will progress to the supporting of their general populace instead of discriminating against them because of their situation instead of helpng them because of it.

No, its a fallacy to try and say my perspective is wrong because "bad countries" do it too. I'm not saying kill to prove that killing is wrong, I'm saying stop playing games with the system and make it work so it IS a deterrent to crime. If there is irrefutable proof some one killed some one else with pre-meditation, screw deathrow, screw appeals, put him in a car to wherever they are going to kill him.
Then why do you want to execute people? Are you seeking revenge, and/or are you full of hate towards these people? You believe in legalized murder?

Then why do you want to execute people? Are you seeking revenge, and/or are you full of hate towards these people? You believe in legalized murder?
I'm not full of hate torwards them, we can stick them in jail for the rest of their life when we know they are guilty and have them take up prison space and cause prison over crowding, or we can kill them without all this jibba jabba that they don't deserve because it is irrefutably proven they did it: finger prints are all over everything, some of their blood is on stuff, in posession of murder weapon, ON TAPE, you know fun things like that

And one more logical fallacy out of you and I will deem you unworthy to even try and debate with. "Do you believe in legalized murder?" Loaded statement

Then why do you want to execute people? Are you seeking revenge, and/or are you full of hate towards these people? You believe in legalized murder?
How does society benefit from keeping a convicted murderer (one who is undeniably guilty) alive? Is it your opinion that keeping these murderers behind bars is acting as a deterrent to crime?

Baby steps toward civilization. Maybe my great-grandchildren can repatriate.

How does society benefit from keeping a convicted murderer (one who is undeniably guilty) alive? Is it your opinion that keeping these murderers behind bars is acting as a deterrent to crime?


Perhaps criminals should be chopped up and fed to animals.

That would be a 'benefit for society.'

Something called 'morality' is responsible for the civilized impulse which opposes allowing the state to kill people.

Perhaps criminals should be chopped up and fed to animals.

That would be a 'benefit for society.'

Something called 'morality' is responsible for the civilized impulse which opposes allowing the state to kill people.
Some would argue that "an eye for an eye" is the moral thing to do...

Some would argue that "an eye for an eye" is the moral thing to do...


You forget that I was referring to civilized, not barbaric morality.

You forget that I was referring to civilized, not barbaric morality.
And who's job is it to define civilized and barbaric? you? Who named you morality police?

And who's job is it to define civilized and barbaric? you? Who named you morality police?

There is a certain je ne sais quoi to the whole affair, but it is entirely self evident.

There is a certain je ne sais quoi to the whole affair, but it is entirely self evident.
So you attempt to legislate morality while not knowing who's morality should be legislated?

Well what are you saying? The average US parent would give consent to have their kid killed in a war that has nothing to do with defending America? That's not insane?

You know, there are different jobs in the military besides combatant roles. In fact, a lot of the time, you have to enlist at age 17 to get the job, or there will be no more seats left in training. (I'm speaking only about the army of course, but I'm assuming that it's similar for the other branches of service) The reason for this is that when you go to MEPS (Military Entrance and Processing Station), the training for the MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) that you pick starts filling up a year in advance of when it starts. And I can safely say that I am not going to fight in any war any time soon. I will be going to Basic for 9 weeks, language school for 1 year MINIMUM, and then on to SIGINT school. SIGINT people for the most part do not go to a warzone. While yes, I realize that not all people have the level of intelligence necessary to do this type of job, there are numerous other non-combatant roles in the military. That is all.

I know we have our differences Eutrusca, but I also have to believe that you would not be so foolish to believe that the government always does what the people want, even in democracies.

Looks over the pro-draft list!

Nope no one on that list yet. Guess I have to find another issue.

Looks over the pro-draft list!

Nope no one on that list yet. Guess I have to find another issue.
Huh? :confused:

Huh? :confused:

Never mind Eutrusca. We've moved on from this issue so I wont bother explaining it. If you would like an explaination though, I would be glad to telegram ya with one.

Geez. Since when does being one day younger than 18 place a magical wall between you being responsible for murder and not?

"Sir, my client horribly slaughtered the young girls, yes, but it occured exactly three seconds before his 18th birthday, and therefore, he cannot be given the death penalty."

How does society benefit from keeping a convicted murderer (one who is undeniably guilty) alive? Is it your opinion that keeping these murderers behind bars is acting as a deterrent to crime?
YES!!

Geez. Since when does being one day younger than 18 place a magical wall between you being responsible for murder and not?

"Sir, my client horribly slaughtered the young girls, yes, but it occured exactly three seconds before his 18th birthday, and therefore, he cannot be given the death penalty."


The same legal standard that prevents people one-day-younger than 18 from purchasing tobacco or firearms or doing a hundred other things.

A line has to be drawn, and the americans have chosen to draw the line at 18.

And its logical to assume that civilized countries will progress to the supporting of their general populace instead of discriminating against them because of their situation instead of helpng them because of it.

No, its a fallacy to try and say my perspective is wrong because "bad countries" do it too. I'm not saying kill to prove that killing is wrong, I'm saying stop playing games with the system and make it work so it IS a deterrent to crime. If there is irrefutable proof some one killed some one else with pre-meditation, screw deathrow, screw appeals, put him in a car to wherever they are going to kill him.

The most obvious flaw in your logic is that capital punishment has shown no evidence that it works as a deterent to crime. Sure a handful of politicians claim that it will, but they're just cashing in on the ill will of the voters. "red meat to the dopes" as it's now being called.

Another is, again, proof is very rarely irrefutable, and when emotions are riding high refutations tend to be overlooked. Just take a look at the rash of bogus child molestations that occured in the 80's. "Child molestation is a horrible thing, so the accused must be guilty," was the prevailing logic. The same thing happens with murder with rather grotesque regularity.

Perhaps criminals should be chopped up and fed to animals.

That would be a 'benefit for society.'

Something called 'morality' is responsible for the civilized impulse which opposes allowing the state to kill people.

I disagree.

Hebrew 'morality' demanded a 'price' to be paid for death... sometimes in 'blood money', sometimes in blood.

Morality is a product of our society, not it's propulsion.

I further disagree... since I think that a TRULY civilised society values ALL of it's citizens equally. In THAT situation, justice is absolute... and someone who impinges on the 'right to life' of another citizen, loses the claim to being a Just Citizen, themselves.

To my mind... that person has then opted-out of civilised society. Such an entity is then non-productive... waste... and should be disposed of accordingly.

The most obvious flaw in your logic is that capital punishment has shown no evidence that it works as a deterent to crime. Sure a handful of politicians claim that it will, but they're just cashing in on the ill will of the voters. "red meat to the dopes" as it's now being called.

Another is, again, proof is very rarely irrefutable, and when emotions are riding high refutations tend to be overlooked. Just take a look at the rash of bogus child molestations that occured in the 80's. "Child molestation is a horrible thing, so the accused must be guilty," was the prevailing logic. The same thing happens with murder with rather grotesque regularity.

The purpose of capital punishment is to make sure - absolutely sure - that the criminal cannot repeat his crime.

Its effect on recidivism is 100%.

Personally, I'm not willing to pay to keep some person alive who is going to repeat his crime.

Serial killers are a good example. Why would I want to keep Ted Bundy alive?

because it costs far less to keep him locked up for life. He's deterred from committing future crime just as well in prison. There's no way you give someone like him parole.


About the only thing the DP has going for it is vengeance. All logic favors life imprisonment.

because it costs far less to keep him locked up for life. He's deterred from committing future crime just as well in prison. There's no way you give someone like him parole.


About the only thing the DP has going for it is vengeance. All logic favors life imprisonment.

On the contrary - I support the death penalty for certain individuals, because, as was pointed out above... there is NO chance of repeat offence.

And, actually - it only costs so much to 'execute', because of how unworkable the legal system is.... which is a fault of the system, that SHOULD be fixed.

If the system worked... people found guilty of REPEATED violent crimes (murder, rape, child abuse)... where they are unquestionably proved guilty... should be instantly executed.

No extra costs... except for a box to bury them in.

No extra costs... except for a box to bury them in.

If you had them thrown alive into a vat of 18M sulfuric acid, you wouldn't even need that.