number 9

dteowner said:

I guess I don't see what's bad about teaching your kids self-reliance and striving for excellence.

Click to expand...

No doubt. I'm grateful by dad was such a hard ass (of course what should I expect, he was an ex-drill sergeant!)

zahratustra said:

Nothing if applayed in moderation. But kids whose parents constantly push them towards excellence and are never satisfied with the results have high chances of growing into adults with complicated personalities.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between never being satisfied and pushing for excellence. I'll agree, parents that are never satisified are as bad as those that just don't give a damn. My parents were probably the perfect balance. They pushed me very, very hard, but they always let me know how proud or impressed they were when I succeeded, and in the rare event I failed, so long as I took something good away from it and had really given it my all, they accepted it. They just didn't accept half assing anything.

Prime Junta said:

Quoting Use of Weapons by Iain M. Banks from memory:

"Once when she was drunk, she told Cheradenine about a planet she visited, where they executed people by strapping them to a chair and running electricity through them. And, get this, this was in a country that had a ban against 'cruel and unusual punishment' in their constitution."

Click to expand...

Ohh, I think the electric chair was cruel (not sure if unusual, but definitely cruel). Lethal injection though, not so much.

I just came across a rather a nice summary about the state of the debate on the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

[ http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty/BackgroundSunsteinWolfersoped.pdf ]

The conclusion is much as I stated it -- if there is a deterrent effect, it's so small it gets lost in the noise.

But what is the alternative? Life without parole? That sort of pokes a hole in the whole "prison is for rehabilitation and reintroduction" balloon paraded around by various activist groups. I'm not in favor of warehousing slimeballs that chose to do crimes vicious enough to merit a death sentence.

The deterrent effect of an event largely kept under wraps is obviously going to be minimized. I wonder what the effect would be if we made a concerted effort to publicly link action and consequence.

dteowner said:

But what is the alternative? Life without parole? That sort of pokes a hole in the whole "prison is for rehabilitation and reintroduction" balloon paraded around by various activist groups. I'm not in favor of warehousing slimeballs that chose to do crimes vicious enough to merit a death sentence.

Click to expand...

What about the risk mitigation aspect? It's clear that you execute innocent people. If you had warehoused them instead, you could let them out and make amends instead. (Also, I'm sure you know that currently the death penalty is more expensive to the taxpayer than life without parole.)

The deterrent effect of an event largely kept under wraps is obviously going to be minimized. I wonder what the effect would be if we made a concerted effort to publicly link action and consequence.

Click to expand...

Might I suggest moving to Saudi Arabia? They're very big on family values and personal morality, they have all the oil you'd ever want, *and* they do public executions.

Prime Junta said:

What about the risk mitigation aspect? It's clear that you execute innocent people. If you had warehoused them instead, you could let them out and make amends instead. (Also, I'm sure you know that currently the death penalty is more expensive to the taxpayer than life without parole.)

Click to expand...

Where is it clear that we execute innocent people? To my knowledge not a single executed prison has been posthumously cleared since the death penalty was brought back in the 70's.

For the anti-DP crowd, this is the Holy Grail against the death penalty. If an innocent person had been executed, they surely would have found it by now.

that's mostly due to "what's the point in finding someone innocent when they're are dead". given the fact that dozens have been found innocent on death row in recent years, its got to be statistically impossible for at least one person who has been put to death-innocent. give the dna folks some time anyhow, and i'm sure a bunch of ghosts will be sent free.

hey dte, i guess we should apply that same 'link' of action and consequence to certain choices made by people in the government as well. oh yeah and the choice to sink the chain of command and responsibilty so deep that group 'a' will have an action with no choice in regards to their treatment of group 'b'.

i guess me i'm looking forward to reading the book:
the prosecution of george w. bush for murder
this book is by a man who has one of the highest prosecution rates for murder, in addition to being the one who prosecuted charles manson.
http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X

nightmare mode----
but who knows when bush declares a 'state of emergency' this november/december after mccain loses, i guess he can just order the book burned or something...

blatantninja said:

Where is it clear that we execute innocent people? To my knowledge not a single executed prison has been posthumously cleared since the death penalty was brought back in the 70's.

Click to expand...

Give that 129 people have been released from death row due to having been found innocent in the same time, why do you suppose this is?

(1) The system really is perfect and no, or a negligible number of, innocents have been executed?

(2) There's very little interest, resources, and money being devoted to investigating crimes for which the culprit has already been put to death?

For the anti-DP crowd, this is the Holy Grail against the death penalty. If an innocent person had been executed, they surely would have found it by now.

Click to expand...

How, exactly, would the go about doing that? They'd have to find the evidence, find an attorney willing to take on the case (or pay one to do it), and run through an extremely expensive trial -- on behalf of somebody who's already dead, and whose family is very likely indigent or at least unwilling to dredge up an extremely painful experience to start with. They'd also be facing a prosecutor's office who would fight tooth and nail for their reputation -- being found to have executed an innocent is very bad press, even among the pro-DP crowd.

The "anti-DP crowd," as you call it, has certainly found plenty of evidence. There just haven't been any trials.

Links about these cases, and about the difficulties involved in reopening cases where there has already been an execution:

[ http://www.democracyinaction.org/di..._KEY=2489&t=Innocent And Executed Section.dwt ]
[ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm ]
[ http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238 ]

...and, yet again, this is one discussion where I'm bowing out at this point. If America chooses to kill its own citizens, with or without due process, it's really none of my business to try to argue the case, one way or the other. I've stated that I deplore the practice, and should really have left it at that.

Prime Junta said:

Give that 129 people have been released from death row due to having been found innocent in the same time, why do you suppose this is?

(1) The system really is perfect and no, or a negligible number of, innocents have been executed?

(2) There's very little interest, resources, and money being devoted to investigating crimes for which the culprit has already been put to death?

Click to expand...

I call 129 people being released as the system working as it should with the appeals process.

I will concede that it is possible though unproven, before the advent of DNA technology, for an innocent person to have been executed, but for people being sentenced today? Pretty much impossible.

How, exactly, would the go about doing that? They'd have to find the evidence, find an attorney willing to take on the case (or pay one to do it), and run through an extremely expensive trial -- on behalf of somebody who's already dead, and whose family is very likely indigent or at least unwilling to dredge up an extremely painful experience to start with. They'd also be facing a prosecutor's office who would fight tooth and nail for their reputation -- being found to have executed an innocent is very bad press, even among the pro-DP crowd.

Click to expand...

The anti-dp crowd is as well funded as most other special interest groups. Organizations like the innocence project (which I support) spend massive amounts of time and money taking on cases that no one else wants. If there was evidence of an innocent person having been executed, they have the resources to find it.

The "anti-DP crowd," as you call it, has certainly found plenty of evidence. There just haven't been any trials.

Click to expand...

Then please put some links to it. I've seen plenty of exonerations of living people, but not a single dead one. Those links you have put up are interesting (haven't had time to read them all), and I thank you for posting, most people who argue this point never bother. So far, I have only read a few and while they seem compelling, they are obviosuly one-sided, I'd need a bit more indepth, non biased coverage to evaluate it.

If America chooses to kill its own citizens, with or without due process, it's really none of my business to try to argue the case, one way or the other

Click to expand...

And honestly, that is all that I ask. I'm not interested in telling another country how to run their affairs (though I may certainly have opinions), so I certainly don't like it when others try to tell us how to do the same.

I must say I find this debate and the arguments very strange from an European and especially a Norwegian viewpoint.

In Norway:
- we have no capital punishment, not even for war crimes
- maximum sentence is 21 years, usually the prisoner is released after servien 2/3 of the sentence
- crime rate is very low compared to the US. We're about 5 million, on the average about 30 people are murdered each year

To me this shows that harsh sentences is not necessary to avoid crime.

But we have
- relatively small difference between social classes, although the number of poor people have been increasing in recent years
- free education all through university, except for nominal fees and the cost of books
- free healthcare, basically
- a well developed social security system

I think this is important in preventing crime.

As for guns, I thought that we had few of them in our homes. Actually there are quite a lot of them. But we don't buy guns to defend ourselves or our properties. We buy'em for sports and for hunting. Thus there is a very high threshold for using them against people.

BTW, the police don't wear guns, except in very special cases.

It's no surprise that I find the criminal justice to be unreasonable harsh. Seems like we're living in completely different worlds.

I'd love to live in a place that had such little crime! I think you are right that many of the systems you have mentioned help, but I think it is a more general cultural difference. The US is such a hodge podge of cultures and attitudes, which in many ways makes it great, it also adds a lot of friction.

The cases from PJ's links are interesting, but I keep coming back to wondering, if these cases were half as flimsy as they are portrayed, how did they not get overturned on appeal (which is automatic and mandatory in any death sentence case)? A blind, deaf, and dumb public defender could have put up enough question marks on these cases to overturn the sentence, even if not overturning the verdict. That tells me there's far more to the story.

@CU, in your starting post
"5/4 striking down a handgun ban in the crime/murder (not to mention lousy weather) capital of the country. they not only struck that down but also a requirement to have a lock on the gun. guess we'll have to wait 'til enough papa gun huggers get their's or their kids brains blown out, but what's a few eggs anyhow?"
Now read that aloud for yourself.

My position is that all gun-banning laws are unconstitutional. If your logic has any shred of merit, all cars would have been banned.

sure tools that provide transportation and kill are almost the same as
tools that ONLY KILL

so by your logic. anyone should be able to own any type of gun? those laws by the way didn't say they couldn't have a gun, just a specific type. hell shit, since our country already has so many nukes, why not just start issuing tactical nukes to those who can afford them. hell i'm sure bethesda would take some of their profits from fallout 3 to start a bill.

actually what cars need to banned are the ones driven usually by gun loving assholes. large suvs, and hummers stand a far greater risk of mowing down pedestrians, smaller cars, and oh alright cyclists. and i think semis should be banned as well, not only do they deteriorate our road infrastructure, contribute to air and noise pollution, but keeping them on the same route as cars is altogether hazardous.

people need guns because they need power.
if everyone gave up their guns do you really think the few criminals could somehow oppress us or run our lives. that notion is riduclous. those individuals would never be as smart or have the support in people or resources that the same small amount of wealthy people have to exert and oppress their influence in any setting with their only weapon being greed.

go ahead and cherry pick folks, or open your hearts and eyes. but really i'm only in it for the world peace. i'm not going to get upset, i'll only be a bit more hopefully when another montgomery burns sheds his skin.

Without guns, you are still a loyal subject of the king/queen of Union Jacks. But I can see it is pointless to discuss with you.

mudsling3 said:

Without guns, you are still a loyal subject of the king/queen of Union Jacks. But I can see it is pointless to discuss with you.

Click to expand...

Actually, the French won that particular war for you.

Now, now, PJ, let's not start rewriting history. The French certainly tipped the balance (for their own purposes), but to say they won the war for us is a bit over the top.

curiously undead said:

people need guns because they need power.
if everyone gave up their guns do you really think the few criminals could somehow oppress us or run our lives. that notion is riduclous.

Click to expand...

The only thing ridiculous is that you even tried to make this point.

I'll make you a deal. When can get all the criminals to give up their weapons and you can guarantee that the government will never oppress the people, I will give up my right to own a gun of any type. Sound fair?

dteowner said:

Now, now, PJ, let's not start rewriting history. The French certainly tipped the balance (for their own purposes), but to say they won the war for us is a bit over the top.

Click to expand...

We may have lost without the French support (maybe, not definitely), but to dishonor the sacrifice of all the American patriots who fought and died for our cause is unconscionable.