|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Took them long enough"
 |
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 03:11 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
3. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I'm still not completely sold on ALWAYS, but until there's a fool-proof way of determining guilt or innocence, I'm going to be against it in most cases (thanks to some OT folks who convinced me).
 
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
samboohoo 17173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 05:54 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Took them long enough" |
In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.I've always been a supporter of the death penalty. I admit that. As I said, I understand all of the arguments against it. And maybe the answer is to abolish it entirely in order to prevent one who is innocent from being put to death. Regarding juveniles, the question has been answered. And one of my questions is how do you draw the line? How do you define that juvenile? What about the 17 year old who turns 18 and becomes an adult the next day but commits the crime while he/she is 17. Throughout the years I have seen many cases where a juvenile commits a heinous crime. How about the victims here? Their death was cruel and unusual. At least the person sentenced to death has time to fight, has time to get their house in order, has time to say goodbye. As I said, it's a hard argument, and it has been resolved. It doesn't mean everyone has to agree to it. 
Crowned by Pooh. Decorated by Syren
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 06:56 PM (EST)
|
|
26. "RE: Took them long enough" |
That'd certainly clear up the backlog of the courts and eliminate the over-crowded prisons.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
BTW, I retract my "activist judges" comment due to lack of time to find substantiation.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 10:56 AM (EST)
 |
|
47. "RE: Took them long enough" |
And locking them up doesn't cover that how, exactly?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:34 AM (EST)
|
|
63. "RE: Took them long enough" |
If you're THAT worried about someone killing again, there's this thing they do called life without the possibility of parole. Consecutive life sentences. I mean, I hate to rain on your parade, but it is, in fact, possible to lock someone up FOREVER.And when that starts being the case more often than not (which it may be, according to Landu) then that's fine. But those sentences have to be handed out like that in the first place. I'd be interested to find out how many murderers actually DO get life without parole. But hey, I bet it's easier to kill them now and be sure. Evil and wrong, but easy. Easier, but harder to un-do.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 05:47 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: Took them long enough" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-01-05 AT 05:50 PM (EST)You think there are instances where killing children is justified, right?I'm not exactly sure, but I think that's over-simplification to the extreme there, Tech. Depends on what your definition of "children" is, which I think is the point to all this. 6, 7, 8, 9, definitely children. 16, 17, maybe not necessarily. And "killing children" is not the issue here. Executing criminals is the issue. And whether 16-17 year old murderer should be considered a child who doesn't know the difference, or a murderer who does.
ETA a good example from the article... Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 05:58 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I didn't call it "executing children", I called it "executing criminals", just to be clear.One thing that would help some folks swallow this a little better is if, while execution of juveniles is disallowed, stricter prison sentences (or prison sentences more often) for criminals like the Simmons guy I cited from the article are enforced, so guys like that WON'T get away with it because of his age. Especially since we aren't always sure they are guilty as accused. And if you read my post above, you'll see that I've changed my mind on the death penalty for now, based on this fact. As for oversimplification, my point is that there's more involved in this than just "killing children".
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gothmog 2886 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
03-01-05, 09:53 PM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Depends on what your definition of "children" is, which I think is the point to all this. 6, 7, 8, 9, definitely children. 16, 17, maybe not necessarily.About a year ago, we discussed showing R-rated movies in the classroom (to students who aren't 17). I mentioned that there might be a difference between a student who is 16 and one who is, say, 12. Your response (which is here, btw) indicated that a definite line should be drawn at age 17--the ratings didn't say "almost 17," they say 17--Period. Are you now going to say that, even though we should draw definite lines regarding what movies our children should see, we should blur the line regarding the age at which a child is responsible for his/her actions and is eligible for execution? 
And just to reiterate, I *always* get permission from parents before showing any part of an R-rated movie to students of any age.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:04 PM (EST)
|
|
71. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Do you ever catch yourself vigorously defending an indefensible position simply because you've taken a stand on the issue? I have. Fortunately, after I started murdering people, I came to the realization that I could actually back down from those positions without losing too much of my internal self-worth or moral and ethical integrity.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:10 PM (EST)
|
|
74. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it indefensible. It's not a case of backing down, but rather of clarifying a position that keeps getting twisted and misconstrued.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:20 PM (EST)
|
|
80. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Well, it seems to me that he's pointing out that I won't back down from what he deems an indefensible position. Did I not understand what he said? Or what an indefensible position is?
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
landruajm 6040 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:45 PM (EST)
|
|
84. "RE: Took them long enough" |
It's not just JV who's calling your position hard to defend (I think maybe if we lighten the language here, we may progress); you've also got me, Wheezy, Gothmog, and Tech (admittedly a Communist cabal, we should be executed, except for Wheezy and Tech, who are too young) beating on you about it too.And it's escalating, partly because you and JV are pretty much egging each other on here, which is what we all do, and what you and JV do, and that's all perfectly fine and dandy as long as everybody hugs at the end and nobody uses nouns. But it's also partly because you're deliberately extremizing (and cross-threading) his teen stupidity line. No, no one is arguing that the Texas guy (Simmons, is it?) was being teen-stupid. Yes, some things teens do (i.e., my Tennessee example) fall into the category of killin' through teen stupidity. However, the part of your argument that is getting hard for you to defend is that you're still claiming to be against the death penalty. I'm not calling you a liar, either directly or indirectly. I am, however, saying that you appear to be arguing the opposite of what you say you're arguing--and that, I think you'll concede (generally), is pretty darned hard to defend. And I suspect that part of why you're continuing to do that is that you and JV drive each other insane, which doesn't make anyone any less part of the family. This executions/movies argument is the old "if you're old enough to be drafted, you're old enough to vote" argument, recast. That's all it is. That's an extreme simplification of what JV's saying, and a less extreme simplification of what Gothmog and TechNoir are saying. Now, let's see everyone hug manfully and foreswear the use of nouns, mmkay? 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:53 PM (EST)
|
|
85. "RE: Took them long enough" |
my sense is that he isn't flip-flopping per se, just having logical versus emotional stuggle with what he would 'like' to have done in a perfect justice system and what currently does go on. as far as not letting go of a point, there i think he's just playing landru's advocate.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Wheezy 9153 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 01:28 PM (EST)
|
|
86. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I'm all about having fun playing devil's advocate. And I think Nailbone knows that if he's looking for answers to help settle the questions in his mind, the best way to do that is to ask questions rather than state points as his opinion or fact that he's not really sure he believes. But different people have different ways of getting answers and I can certainly respect that.But in any political argument, if somebody's not having fun anymore (and I'm not sure that is the case here--are we having fun? I think so), that somebody ought to either agree to disagree, bail out of the dialogue, or change direction to get the answers he or she is really seeking. I'm pretty sure everybody here knows that. But if they don't, they should be prepared to be challenged. Sometimes admitting ignorance on a topic is really difficult to do. I'm stubborn enough to not want to admit it sometimes. But I've found the way people respond to my questions is amazingly different from their responses if I post something as fact that I'm ignorant about. I say this in general, not strictly in reference to this particular thread, but to all threads whose purpose is to debate and discuss. One's actual approach in a debate/discussion seems like a minor thing, but since vocal inflection and tone are indiscernable on a message board, sentence structure and form of argument are crucial. However, I think this is a very interesting, informative and entertaining thread, and I hope Nailbone is enjoying the debate. It certainly wouldn't hurt if a few others joined in, just to make things more balanced.
 Wheeze
Wheeze * Everything In Between
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 02:38 PM (EST)
|
|
91. "RE: Took them long enough" |
my sense is that he isn't flip-flopping per se, just having logical versus emotional stuggle with what he would 'like' to have done in a perfect justice system and what currently does go on. as far as not letting go of a point, there i think he's just playing landru's advocate. Bingo. In a perfect justice system, I'd be all for the death penalty, for the reasons I've stated. But until such a justice system emerges, I'd vote against the death penalty. No real struggle there. As for not letting go, and egging on, I'm gonna back out of that, cuz it's going nowhere, and it's all fun and games until someone uses a noun. But then again, isn't "noun" a noun?
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 05:53 PM (EST)
|
|
108. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Sharkie wipes are the method of choice around here.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:18 PM (EST)
|
|
79. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I'll use really small words:If a perp is that bad, lock them up. Keep them in jail. End of problem, child OR adult. This societal fascination with killing people in retribution for crimes committed is sick, even without considering the issue of possibly killing innocent people. As for preventing future murders, I'd contend that the usual "street" requirements for defensible killing aren't met, "imminent threat," in specific. He's locked up, and therefore no longer an imminent threat. Or, alternatively, we could just authorize police to start capping anyone they feel might be guilty.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:23 PM (EST)
|
|
81. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I'll use really small words:
If a perp is that bad, lock them up. Keep them in jail. End of problem, child OR adult.And I'll use small words too. Dandy, but make 'em stay there. even without considering the issue of possibly killing innocent people. This is the main problem I have with the death penalty. He's locked up, and therefore no longer an imminent threat.
IF he stays locked up, and doesn't have connections to do his dirty work on the outside (yes, I probably watch too much Law & Order).
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:08 PM (EST)
|
|
73. "RE: Took them long enough" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-02-05 AT 12:08 PM (EST)But it seems like you're saying that, where movies are concerned, a person isn't considered an adult until they're absolutely 17. Period. Actually, what I said way back when, is that MY KIDS aren't mature enough to see R-rated movies. JV extrapolated that into my thinking that they weren't mature enough to be executed for murder. But if it's murder we're talking about, we can consider them an adult, maybe, at 16 or earlier? In some cases, maybe so.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:34 AM (EST)
|
|
61. "RE: Took them long enough" |
So you'd agree that somehow, magically, the kid who murdered someone is now mature enough to die in the electric chair for being a stupid, immature, scared, and any number of other things, but he still shouldn't watch a little sexual innuendo on the idiot box? Since they're completely different things.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
landruajm 6040 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:34 AM (EST)
|
|
62. "RE: Took them long enough" |
The theme I'm noting here is that you're awfully argumentative in favor of the death penalty, for a death penalty opponent.There's a Tennessee case right now about two stepbrothers who shot some people driving by on the highway (an interstate, I think). They were like 14 and 12 (give or take a year on both). They were shooting at the sides of truck trailers, and missed. Their behavior falls a lot more into the category of teen stupidity that JV was addressing, than it does the category of cold-blooded premeditated murder. I don't think either of them are on the block for capital charges, but I tell the story to illustrate the teen stupidity thing you seem unwilling to accept. FTR, I'm against executing people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes, although I could envision a case where a 17-year-old wasn't spiritually a juvenile. I'd have to stretch for it, though.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:18 PM (EST)
|
|
78. "RE: Took them long enough" |
The theme I'm noting here is that you're awfully argumentative in favor of the death penalty, for a death penalty opponent.I've said before that I'm against the death penalty in it's current form, yes, because there are still too many cases of innocents being convicted. And like I said in another post, it's tough to un-do. But when a fool-proof way of determining guilt is perfected, then that's another story. but I tell the story to illustrate the teen stupidity thing you seem unwilling to accept. I'm not unwilling to accept the "teen stupidity thing". Like JV, you're adding things that aren't part of the original discussion. Hogtying a woman and throwing her off a bridge to her death, as Simmons did, can hardly be classified as "teen stupidity". THAT's the part I won't accept. An accidental shooting, or what these kids you cited did, can be. FTR, I'm against executing people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes, although I could envision a case where a 17-year-old wasn't spiritually a juvenile. I'd have to stretch for it, though. (not gonna go there....)
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 04:39 PM (EST)
|
|
5. "Depends" |
Actually, you've now reached a key issue in the debate over U.S. jurisprudence. To what extent should the U.S. be influenced by international norms?For starters, U.S. law has ALWAYS been influenced by British and Commonwealth law. Up to Taft's term as chief justice in the 1920s, it wasn't at all unusual to see U.S. Supreme Court decisions referencing the development of the law in Britain and other members of the British Commonwealth. Under that precedent, which certainly qualifies as OK with the "founders," the fact that no other Commonwealth country continues the practice should be taken into account. This has nothing to do with bending to international pressure. It's the realization that we share a "common-law" system with other countries with British heritage, and the development of a consensus among those countries is a factor worth considering. Perhaps in these days of multiculturalism, it's politically incorrect to look to only the Commonwealth countries for common law. After all, U.S. influence has caused other countries to adopt common-law systems as well over the last century. The views of those nations may also have some weight. Nevertheless, it would be legally irrelevant to look to non-common law countries (such as France) to see what they do. After all, their legal systems don't have a common basis with ours. So, in short -- I don't know what Kennedy's full discussion was, because I haven't read the opinion (and I don't really care enough to do so). But if he says that common-law countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. do not permit such executions, then the discussion is relevant and it should be a consideration (although not, by itself, determinative). It's like a state looking to other states with regard to a state-law issue. The other state's decision isn't determinative. Nevertheless, it has influence because the states have similar, although not identical, common law. Substitute "common-law nation" for "U.S. state," and the same principle holds true.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 04:43 PM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: Depends" |
Thanks, AyaK. As always, very informative.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
FesterFan1 5947 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 05:01 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "In this case? Yes." |
LAST EDITED ON 03-01-05 AT 05:03 PM (EST)I understand not wanting to have a ruling that refers to precedent in a handful of countries. However, when the rest of the world, minus a couple countries whose human rights records are not to be envied, have ruled the same way, I think you can, and should, reference them when overturning the status quo. The alternative is playing ostrich. I'm not a big fan of that method.  Fester
One class of citizens down, the rest to go...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 07:05 PM (EST)
|
|
27. "Not really" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-01-05 AT 07:06 PM (EST)>However, when the rest of the world, minus a couple countries
>whose human rights records are not to be envied, have
>ruled the same way, I think you can, and should,
>reference them when overturning the status quo. It certainly matters that other common-law countries have reached the same conclusion ... and I agree that it should. But if they hadn't, then the question of "conforming to the world standard" is a question that should be addressed by legislatures, not courts. Alright, you forced me to skim the opinions.  In this case, Kennedy notes that the U.S. is one of two countries that has failed to ratify an international treaty that prohibits the youth death penalty (the other is Somalia). That is a legislative decision, which by definition is OK as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. Does it? To determine that, Kennedy turns to English precedent: Though the international covenants prohibiting the juvenile death penalty are of more recent date, it is instructive to note that the United Kingdom abolished the juvenile death penalty before these covenants came into being. The United Kingdom’s experience bears particular relevance here in light of the historic ties between our countries and in light of the Eighth Amendment’s own origins. The Amendment was modeled on a parallel provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which provided: “xcessive Bail ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusuall Punishments inflicted.” 1 W. & M., ch. 2, §10, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1770); see also Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As of now, the United Kingdom has abolished the death penalty in its entirety; but, decades before it took this step, it recognized the disproportionate nature of the juvenile death penalty; and it abolished that penalty as a separate matter. In 1930 an official committee recommended that the minimum age for execution be raised to 21. House of Commons Report from the Select Committee on Capital Punishment (1930), 193, p. 44. Parliament then enacted the Children and Young Person’s Act of 1933, 23 Geo. 5, ch. 12, which prevented execution of those aged 18 at the date of the sentence. And in 1948, Parliament enacted the Criminal Justice Act, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, ch. 58, prohibiting the execution of any person under 18 at the time of the offense. O'Connor's dissent, by the way, is in part motivated by a desire for the Supreme Court to refuse to support a lower court that refused to follow a controlling Supreme Court precedent: As a preliminary matter, I take issue with the Court’s failure to reprove, or even to acknowledge, the Supreme Court of Missouri’s unabashed refusal to follow our controlling decision in Stanford. The lower court concluded that, despite Stanford’s clear holding and historical recency, our decision was no longer binding authority because it was premised on what the court deemed an obsolete assessment of contemporary values. Quite apart from the merits of the constitutional question, this was clear error. Because the Eighth Amendment “draw<s> its meaning from . . . evolving standards of decency,” Trop, 356 U. S., at 101 (plurality opinion), significant changes in societal mores over time may require us to reevaluate a prior decision. Nevertheless, it remains “this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.” State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997) (emphasis added). That is so even where subsequent decisions or factual developments may appear to have “significantly undermined” the rationale for our earlier holding. United States v. Hatter, 532 U. S. 557, 567 (2001); see also State Oil Co., supra, at 20; Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989). The Eighth Amendment provides no exception to this rule. On the contrary, clear, predictable, and uniform constitutional standards are especially desirable in this sphere. By affirming the lower court’s judgment without so much as a slap on the hand, today’s decision threatens to invite frequent and disruptive reassessments of our Eighth Amendment precedents. Scalia, in a separate dissent not joined by O'Connor, charges into the battle on his high horse: Though the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant to the Court’s decision today, the views of other countries and the so-called international community take center stage. Scalia goes on to make an argument that neither the majority nor O'Connor would agree with, and so it's totally irrelevant. And some people think he should be Chief Justice? Absurd. More fundamentally, however, the basic premise of the Court’s argument — that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world — ought to be rejected out of hand. In fact the Court itself does not believe it. So why do you and your two fellow travellers think it's a basic premise, Nino, when the other six justices don't believe it, and nothing in this opinion claims otherwise?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Captain_Savem 3731 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"
|
03-01-05, 05:44 PM (EST)
|
|
10. "RE: Took them long enough" |
That's a shame when all you have to do is look at the final vote tally to tell who fell where...Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. Like they said, no big surprises there. And did I mention how much they make me sick. But this? They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Disappoints me. Sandy, Sandy, Sandy. And just when I was starting to like you.  
PhoenixMons did this to me.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 08:40 PM (EST)
|
|
33. "Reversals" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-01-05 AT 08:41 PM (EST)I don't think much is comparable to Dred Scott, with its declaration that blacks could never become U.S. citizens! As O'Connor notes, there was a bigger change in state recognition of sodomy laws between the time of Bowers and Lawrence than there was here. The Bowers court in 1986 noted 25 states had anti-sodomy laws. The Lawrence court in 2003 noted that only 9 states still had such laws. Not that this should really matter.... One of the funniest quotes in Bowers, BTW, was in Burger's concurrence: Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." Sodomy an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape? Can you imagine any justice on the Court today (OK, maybe Scalia) citing such a quote with a straight face?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheezy 9153 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-01-05, 07:48 PM (EST)
|
|
31. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I know this is an endless, ongoing argument, but I still don't understand how conservatives think they are entitled to put people to death, especially when most of them are strongly opposed to legalized abortion.Yes, I know that an unborn baby has not committed a crime. Yes, I am aware of the difference between a sick killer and an innocent fetus. But many conservatives use the Bible as a resource in their decisions on this. Where in the Bible does God say it's okay to kill someone? The consistency on God's specific law for people (Jews and Gentiles) throughout the Hebrew and Christian Testament is clearer and more consistent than most other religious/purity/natural custom rules found in the Bible--it's the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not murder. Who are we (humans, that is) to decide who is killed and who is not? I can't seem to get past this, and I guess i don't really want to. In my opinion, God is big enough to change anyone's life. Even a psycho-killer's life. Even the life of someone who gossips or is envious or doesn't honor his parents or steals or covets or hates his neighbor. Or someone who judges people piously. Or condemns people. Or acts like God. Why don't conservatives fight for the right to kill some of these other folks? Maybe it's because the people who feel qualified to condemn somebody to death ARE these other folks.
Wheeze
Wheeze * Everything In Between
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
landruajm 6040 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 09:54 AM (EST)
|
|
40. "RE: Took them long enough" |
She wasn't generalizing. Her point was that an anti-abortion stance is inconsistent with a pro-death penalty stance (far more inconsistent, by the way, than the reverse, given the debate over what constitutes life). It's not an unfair generalization to say that that combination of stances is almost uniformly conservative.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Wheezy 9153 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:18 AM (EST)
|
|
52. "RE: Took them long enough" |
but I still don't understand how some conservatives think they are entitled to put people to death, especially when most of them are strongly opposed to legalized abortion.Kfan, if I insert the word 'some' in the sentence above, does that make a difference in how it reads? I had no intent to generalize. I'm not always as articulate as I wish to be, but I'm working on it and I don't mind you pointing that out. Landru managed to pull the intended point out of my post quite nicely--thanks Landru. Wheeze
Wheeze * Everything In Between
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheezy 9153 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:36 AM (EST)
|
|
64. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Hey boner, I'm not sure what your point is above. In the sentence I wrote that you quote, I'm saying that many conservatives use the Bible as a resource or guide when they make their own personal decisions on where they stand on an issue. Perhaps I didn't make it clear I'm talking about personal decisions, but as the sentence reads I feel it is clear. Is this an incorrect statement? Here again is the sentence to save scrolling time:
But many conservatives use the Bible as a resource in their decisions on this. And this sentence puzzles me:
And notice, even on the cross, Jesus only forgave the repentent thief, he didn't remove him from his cross. As far as the thief on the cross...it took me a minute to even understand why that might be remotely relevant. I don't think it is. Are you saying Christ condones the death penalty because he didn't remove the thief from the cross? Christ isn't the one crucifying him. God allowing free will and all that... Wheeze
Wheeze * Everything In Between
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:38 AM (EST)
|
|
65. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Take-home message: Christ supports the death penalty for common thieves.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:44 AM (EST)
|
|
68. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Does this go along with the take-home message that cold-blooded murder can be considered merely typical teen stupidity?
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 11:49 AM (EST)
|
|
69. "RE: Took them long enough" |
How about "minors aren't emotionally or intellectually mature enough to watch R-rated movies or make fully informed, mentally competent decisions, even if that decision leads to killing someone, and therefore they can't be held to adult standards of punishment, such as the death penalty."
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Wheezy 9153 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 12:33 PM (EST)
|
|
82. "RE: Took them long enough" |
JV honey, you won't take that message to heart, will you? Pleasy Wheezy?...and then again, Nailbone, so what if he does? You'd know he's wrong. Anyway, we haven't had a good rumble lately. I think you guys should meet behind the gym after school and duke it out.  Wheeze
I miss Misto. Wheeze * Everything In Between
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Wheezy 9153 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 01:45 PM (EST)
|
|
88. "RE: Took them long enough" |
"Presenting Beat It
behind the gym after school
Starring Boner."Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Wheeze
sorry JV, you only made the back cover of the program. Wheeze * Everything In Between
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 02:49 PM (EST)
|
|
94. "RE: Took them long enough" |
"other knee"
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 02:52 PM (EST)
|
|
95. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Nah, I'd rather take him out and buy him a beer.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
Me too.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 05:01 PM (EST)
|
|
101. "RE: Took them long enough" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-02-05 AT 05:06 PM (EST)But science doens't necesarily fix it. Look at Michael Blair. The junk science that convicted him has been PROVEN to be wrong. Mitochondrial DNA testing has completely refuted the ONLY evidence tieing him to the murder that he is sitting on death row for. It came from an unknown third party. The hair evidence that convicted him was wrong - that's not even in dispute. But he's a convicted pedophile and he looks like a scary little troll and no one wants to deal with the fact that he might not have done this. But there he sits - he's had two scheduled execution dates. Both stayed. I don't even know for sure whether or not a new trial is a certainty - the prosecutors are/were fighting it. The hair evidence being wrong doesn''t prove him innocent - for all I know he may be guilty of killing Ashley Estell. But the jury said that is why they convicted - it was the only evidence they had against him. The state has to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's not right when their own science is proven wrong that they don't step up to the plate and acknowledge that so far they haven't. Don't take this as me being a fan of Michael Blair. he's a pedophile who shouldn't have en paroled 18 months into a ten year sentence. But if he didn't do this - then whoever did got away with abducting a murdering a beautiful seven year old girl. I would think for her memory everyone involved would want to be sure that the right guy is behind bars.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-02-05, 05:47 PM (EST)
|
|
105. "RE: Took them long enough" |
I compltely agree there should be tougher sentences for pedophiles and rapists. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the DP, because only murderers and treasonist (I believe) are eligible for death anyway.And not even all murders are eligible, I don't think. Unfortuneately, the prisons are so full of non-violent drug offenders, the have to keep releasing these monsters to make room for even more non-violent drung offenders. Too true. But THAT is for another thread. Well, *I*'m not gonna start it. 
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-03-05, 11:10 AM (EST)
|
|
114. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Not now. Maybe someday.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-03-05, 12:06 PM (EST)
|
|
119. "RE: Took them long enough" |
Yeah, the "science" part is definitely not the only problem in the death penalty issue.
New from Sigs by Syren!!
Keep lookin' up, cuz that's where it all is. o-
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
(c) Slicey 2004
