Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #362   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:25:17 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.


Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?


Take it up with the Supremes.

"While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections
always raised against categorical rules, that is the point
where society draws the line for many purposes between
childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for
death eligibility ought to rest."


Do you have a good argument for 17-1/2 years? 8-1/2?


Yes, I feel that the crime should determine the penalty.

The age of the murderer doesn't change the outcome
for the victim and their family,


Are you looking for revenge here, or is this an eye for an
eye thing?


Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?

and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.


6-1/2 years?


Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?

But keep that funny size paper outta here.


On that, we agree. It just looks _wrong_.


It *is* wrong (and doesn't fit in any of my binders).


I used to have a four-hole punch for the stuff, went in the four-ring
binders, of course. It's like a whole 'nother world. And, the 50-Hz
buzz is really strange; you get used to 60 Hz (I'm hearing it right now
if I listen for it), and everything just sounds _wrong_.

  #363   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Ned Simmons
says...

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?


Take it up with the Supremes.


Rule one: When the court produces a decision that goes with
your ideology, bang the drum and holler as loud as you can
that you now have a "mandate."

Rule two: if they decide against your world view, blubber
kick and scream that this is all wrong and as soon as you
can appoint a few more justices (in spite of the fact that
most of them are slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan at the
moment) you will *really* show them other fellers what-for!
And no way they were right, so the law shouldn't be changed
anyhow. Just 9 old geezers anyhow...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #364   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:54 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ned Simmons
says...

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?


Take it up with the Supremes.


Rule one: When the court produces a decision that goes with
your ideology, bang the drum and holler as loud as you can
that you now have a "mandate."


I don't see anyone calling it a "mandate" other than those who
disagree with Bush, saying people on the right call it a mandate.

Rule two: if they decide against your world view, blubber
kick and scream that this is all wrong and as soon as you
can appoint a few more justices (in spite of the fact that
most of them are slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan at the
moment) you will *really* show them other fellers what-for!
And no way they were right, so the law shouldn't be changed
anyhow. Just 9 old geezers anyhow...


I also don't see any blubbering, kicking, or screaming. I disagree,
is all.

  #365   Report Post  
Ned Simmons
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:25:17 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?


Take it up with the Supremes.

"While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections
always raised against categorical rules, that is the point
where society draws the line for many purposes between
childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for
death eligibility ought to rest."


Do you have a good argument for 17-1/2 years? 8-1/2?


Yes, I feel that the crime should determine the penalty.

The age of the murderer doesn't change the outcome
for the victim and their family,


Are you looking for revenge here, or is this an eye for an
eye thing?


Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?


Yes, I think we should try, and I think there's a much
better chance of rehabilitating a teenaged as opposed to a
30 year old murderer. The Court agrees. If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.


and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.


6-1/2 years?


Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?


No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.

Ned Simmons


  #366   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:27:37 -0500, the inscrutable Ned Simmons
spake:

In article ,
says...

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

When did we execute children?


Until yesterday, according to the Supreme Court.


What a crock of **** -that- is, too. If someone takes another's life,
theirs should be forfeit as well, no matter what age.

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
  #367   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:54 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ned Simmons
says...

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?


Take it up with the Supremes.


Rule one: When the court produces a decision that goes with
your ideology, bang the drum and holler as loud as you can
that you now have a "mandate."

Rule two: if they decide against your world view, blubber
kick and scream that this is all wrong and as soon as you
can appoint a few more justices (in spite of the fact that
most of them are slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan at the
moment) you will *really* show them other fellers what-for!
And no way they were right, so the law shouldn't be changed
anyhow. Just 9 old geezers anyhow...

Jim


Actually...they are not for the most part Conservatives. Only 4 of
them could be considered so.

The Left is desperately continuing to try to block appointments of
anyone but liberal or left-moderate judges. To the point of showing
their racism while attempting to do so.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #368   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:27:37 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article ,
says...

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

When did we execute children?


Until yesterday, according to the Supreme Court.

Ned Simmons


Actually..no. SCOTUS ruled that if a murder was committed by a perp
who was a minor..he was not subject to the death penalty, even if he
was 50 when caught.

Big difference.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #369   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Actually..no. SCOTUS ruled that if a murder was committed by a perp
who was a minor..he was not subject to the death penalty, even if he
was 50 when caught.


When caught, or when convicted?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #370   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Actually...they are not for the most part Conservatives. Only 4 of
them could be considered so.


Most were considered so when appointed.

Funny how a lifetime appointment tends to make
one's ideology drift....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================


  #372   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:51:20 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...


Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?


Yes, I think we should try, and I think there's a much
better chance of rehabilitating a teenaged as opposed to a
30 year old murderer. The Court agrees.


What's the rate of rehabilitation actually working, where the person
changes and becomes a non-criminal?

If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.


I didn't bring up expense, Ned. Tax money gets spent to keep society safe
in many different ways.


and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.


6-1/2 years?


Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?


No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.


Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.

  #373   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:38:50 -0800, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:27:37 -0500, the inscrutable Ned Simmons
spake:

In article ,
says...

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.
When did we execute children?


Until yesterday, according to the Supreme Court.


What a crock of **** -that- is, too. If someone takes another's life,
theirs should be forfeit as well, no matter what age.


(blink) (blink) Larry? Is that you?

  #374   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Mar 2005 15:43:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:51:20 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...


Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?


Yes, I think we should try, and I think there's a much
better chance of rehabilitating a teenaged as opposed to a
30 year old murderer. The Court agrees.


What's the rate of rehabilitation actually working, where the person
changes and becomes a non-criminal?

If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.


I didn't bring up expense, Ned. Tax money gets spent to keep society safe
in many different ways.


and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?

Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?


No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.


Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.


One should further note..that murder has the lowest repeat rate of any
criminal behavior. Most murders are done in a "moment of passion" and
the repeat rate is nearly zero. We are not talking about gang members
or serial nut cases here.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #375   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Mar 2005 04:54:33 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Actually...they are not for the most part Conservatives. Only 4 of
them could be considered so.


Most were considered so when appointed.

Funny how a lifetime appointment tends to make
one's ideology drift....

Jim


Jim..they were only considered conservative by the Fringe Left...
Care to give us a listing of who proposed each Justice? EG

Gunner



Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael


  #376   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Mar 2005 04:52:51 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Actually..no. SCOTUS ruled that if a murder was committed by a perp
who was a minor..he was not subject to the death penalty, even if he
was 50 when caught.


When caught, or when convicted?

Jim


When convicted. If you commit a murder under the new ruling when you
are 17 1/2, you are NOT allowed to be executed. Period. No matter when
you are caught OR convicted. Most trials take up to 4 yrs to even
start, and the average time it takes to get someone executed is a bit
over 10 yrs...so the perp could be 30 yrs old and still not be
executable.

So far, at least 90 some inmates on death row (in 19 states) will
have their sentences commuted to life. None of them are under 22 yrs
of age from my understanding..and all committed capital offenses at
ages as young as 14.

We never executed minors in our entire history that Im aware of.
England did often enough at certain times...shrug.

So if you are a minor of any age, you get a free pass to murder
someone. One would HOPE that those sentences are commuted to life
without the possibility of parole..but if its simply converted to
Life...they could be out in less than 20 yrs. In some cases..less than
12.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #377   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:22:20 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:27:37 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article ,
says...

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.
When did we execute children?


Until yesterday, according to the Supreme Court.

Ned Simmons


Actually..no. SCOTUS ruled that if a murder was committed by a perp
who was a minor..he was not subject to the death penalty, even if he
was 50 when caught.

Big difference.


I don't know what your point is here, Gunner. Hopefully we
all understand that the execution for a murder committed by
a 16 year old is not likely to be carried out until he's
well over 18.

The Court's decision was simply about the age at which a
juvenile's level of responsiblity is sufficient to apply
the death penalty. They decided to bump that age up a
couple years. It had nothing to do with when the conviction
occurs, or age at the time of sentencing or execution.

Ned Simmons


Your comment was regarding in effect, we execute minors. Which was
completely incorrect.

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.


Just setting the record straight.

I should further note..that Im not a fan of capital punishment, so I
don't have much of a dog in this fight.

On the other hand..I do believe in exile.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #378   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

So if you are a minor of any age, you get a free pass to murder
someone. One would HOPE that those sentences are commuted to life
without the possibility of parole..but if its simply converted to
Life...they could be out in less than 20 yrs. In some cases..less than
12.


It's a tough call. When Gideon v. Wainright was finally decided,
they had to decide what to do with all the prisoners who had been
tried, convicted, and incarcerated without ever having had any
legal representation.

I think most of them got new trials - but I believe that they
took the ones who were illiterate, and simply released them.

No doubt some of them were indeed guilty of the crimes they
had been charged with. What's worse, knowing that they're back
out on the street - or knowing that you live in a country where
a man who cannot read or write, and cannot afford a lawyer, can
be convicted of a crime and sent to jail?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #379   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Jim..they were only considered conservative by the Fringe Left...
Care to give us a listing of who proposed each Justice? EG


Hmm. Let's see, reagan got two of them, nixon got at least one,
if those guys count as fringe left you need to do some serious
thinking about your positions.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #380   Report Post  
Ned Simmons
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:51:20 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...

Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?


Yes, I think we should try, and I think there's a much
better chance of rehabilitating a teenaged as opposed to a
30 year old murderer. The Court agrees.


What's the rate of rehabilitation actually working, where the person
changes and becomes a non-criminal?


Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is that it's easier to change a
teenager for the better than a 30 year old, and we haven't entirely
given up on older offenders yet.


If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.


I didn't bring up expense, Ned. Tax money gets spent to keep society safe
in many different ways.


Sure you did, you said (emphasis added),

"Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How do you
propose they will contribute more to society than they have taken? Even
if it's possible, why **invest money** and effort on someone who as
already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?"



and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?

Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?


No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.


Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.


Since the Supreme Court has previously ruled that murders committed
under the age of sixteen are not subject to the death penalty, your
question is moot-of course there have been no executions of 6 year olds.

You objected to the Court raising the age from 16 to 18, but have been
coy about whether you think limiting the death penalty at any age is
appropriate. If you do believe it's appropriate, then we're only arguing
about where to draw the line, and you've given no reasons for your
objection to the Court's action. If you don't think age restrictions are
called for at all, and prefer to rely on the judgement of a jury in all
cases, then you need to be prepared for very young offenders to face the
death penalty. I'm not saying that's an illogical position, but if that
is your opinion, we're having the wrong conversation.

Ned Simmons




  #382   Report Post  
Eregon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gunner wrote in
:

So far, at least 90 some inmates on death row (in 19 states) will
have their sentences commuted to life. None of them are under 22 yrs
of age from my understanding..and all committed capital offenses at
ages as young as 14.


According to 1 news report, Texas has 1 that's now 18.
  #383   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:00:49 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...

What's the rate of rehabilitation actually working, where the person
changes and becomes a non-criminal?


Honestly, I don't know.


Not real damn good.

What I do know is that it's easier to change a
teenager for the better than a 30 year old, and we haven't entirely
given up on older offenders yet.


A misguided waste of money, in my opinion. Spend it on people who aren't
already in the negative column.

If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.


I didn't bring up expense, Ned. Tax money gets spent to keep society safe
in many different ways.


Sure you did, you said (emphasis added),


"Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How do you
propose they will contribute more to society than they have taken? Even
if it's possible, why **invest money** and effort on someone who as
already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?"


Ah, I see the confusion. I'm saying don't waste money trying to
rehabilitate them, I'm not complaining about spending money to keep
them away from the rest of the society they have chosen not to be a part of.
The waste isn't in keeping them away, the waste is in putting them back
in to re-offend.

and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?

Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?

No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.


Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.


Since the Supreme Court has previously ruled that murders committed
under the age of sixteen are not subject to the death penalty, your
question is moot-of course there have been no executions of 6 year olds.


Which is why your point is a red-herring, yes.

You objected to the Court raising the age from 16 to 18,


Actually someone else brought that up here.

but have been
coy about whether you think limiting the death penalty at any age is
appropriate.


If it's a murder conviction, it's appropriate. If it's a six year old, they
aren't being convicted of murder. I see no contradiction here.

If you do believe it's appropriate, then we're only arguing
about where to draw the line, and you've given no reasons for your
objection to the Court's action.


The line is - if the court that tries the case calls it murder, it's
murder, regardless of the age of the offender.

If you don't think age restrictions are
called for at all, and prefer to rely on the judgement of a jury in all
cases, then you need to be prepared for very young offenders to face the
death penalty. I'm not saying that's an illogical position, but if that
is your opinion, we're having the wrong conversation.


If there were any cases where your hypothetical 6 year old was convicted
of murder, we'd have something to discuss. But, it's the equivalent of
claiming that you plant a certain kind of tree, to keep elephants out of
your yard - sure, no elephants, but if you live in Alaska, have you
really accomplished anything? OK, that analogy sucked worse than most,
but what I'm saying is, we're arguing a non-point over a non-event.
Six year olds haven't been convicted of murder and executed.

How about Lee Malvo? Do you think he was guilty of murder, and so you
think that he should be exempt from the penalty because he wasn't 18
when he did it?

Dave Hinz
  #386   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Mar 2005 10:38:46 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Gunner says...

So if you are a minor of any age, you get a free pass to murder
someone. One would HOPE that those sentences are commuted to life
without the possibility of parole..but if its simply converted to
Life...they could be out in less than 20 yrs. In some cases..less than
12.


It's a tough call. When Gideon v. Wainright was finally decided,
they had to decide what to do with all the prisoners who had been
tried, convicted, and incarcerated without ever having had any
legal representation.

I think most of them got new trials - but I believe that they
took the ones who were illiterate, and simply released them.


WTF for?


No doubt some of them were indeed guilty of the crimes they
had been charged with. What's worse, knowing that they're back
out on the street - or knowing that you live in a country where
a man who cannot read or write, and cannot afford a lawyer, can
be convicted of a crime and sent to jail?


What does any one of those things have to do with the others?
Our justice system, such as it is, says that ignorance is no
excuse. And poor folks get free legal representation.

That they're out on the streets is the problem.

What's worse, dealing drugs or killing several people? Dealers
get worse sentences than killers do in this country. Go figure.

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
  #387   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:18:06 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On 3 Mar 2005 15:43:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:51:20 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...


Are you saying we should try to rehabilitate a murderer? How
do you propose they will contribute more to society than they
have taken? Even if it's possible, why invest money and effort
on someone who as already shown themselves to be unworthy of trust?

Yes, I think we should try, and I think there's a much
better chance of rehabilitating a teenaged as opposed to a
30 year old murderer. The Court agrees.


What's the rate of rehabilitation actually working, where the person
changes and becomes a non-criminal?

If it doesn't work
out I have no problem with life imprisonment, but if we
kill the kid we'll never know. As far as expense goes,
under the present system, life in prison is probably no
more expensive than 20 yrs on death row with all the
attendant appeals.


I didn't bring up expense, Ned. Tax money gets spent to keep society safe
in many different ways.


and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?

Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?

No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.


Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.


One should further note..that murder has the lowest repeat rate of any
criminal behavior. Most murders are done in a "moment of passion" and
the repeat rate is nearly zero.


Hmm, interesting.


We are not talking about gang members or serial nut cases here.


Aren't teen gang members the largest group of young murderers?


================================================== ========
Save the |||
http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========
  #388   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:35 GMT, Johan wrote:

I still like the idea of old-fashioned outlawry: Refuse to obey the law,
forfeit its protection as well.

Where're a few good Norsemen when you need 'em? Not a Thing to be had
anywhere!


Yes; my Viking ancestors would be disgusted at what we've done to their
"jury of 12 peers" concept.

  #389   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Larry Jaques says...

It's a tough call. When Gideon v. Wainright was finally decided,


excuse. And poor folks get free legal representation.


Umm. You're kind of missing something here Larry.

Do you know *why* they get free legal representation?

Hint. It was all about a man named Clarence Earl Gideon who
was arrested, asked for a lawyer, and was denied representation.

He was arrested for stealing about a hundred dollars in quarters
from the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, FL.

They get free legal representation because Mr. Gideon eventually
went to washington to talk to those 9 guys in the robes.

Those 9 guys decided that maybe it's not so smart to arrest
folks, and then convict them if they don't have a lawyer.
They thought it was even dumber to try them and convict them
without a lawyer, if they couldn't read or write. The 9 guys
said that the prisoners in that catagory had to be released.

The other ones all got new trials.

Which is why in the Miranda (remember him, do you know who
*he* was) warnings they include the line "if you cannot afford
a lawyer, one will be appointed for you."

That wasn't true until Mr. Gideon made it so by petitioning
up to the USSC.

He got a new trial. He asked for a local attorney. He
was found innocent at the second trial.

I pose the same question to you Larry: should our criminal
justice system convict illiterates and incarcerate them, when
they've had no legal representation during the trial?

Would you overturn Gideon v. Wainright?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #390   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Mar 2005 17:37:39 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

It's a tough call. When Gideon v. Wainright was finally decided,


excuse. And poor folks get free legal representation.


Umm. You're kind of missing something here Larry.


No, I'm saying that the post I replied to implied that there
were folks going to jail without any representation and I
disagreed.


Do you know *why* they get free legal representation?

Hint. It was all about a man named Clarence Earl Gideon who
was arrested, asked for a lawyer, and was denied representation.


That was over 40 years ago, Jim. And I'm glad he went through
that so nobody ever got bamboozled again in the wonderfully just
courts of our land. :^(


I pose the same question to you Larry: should our criminal
justice system convict illiterates and incarcerate them, when
they've had no legal representation during the trial?


No, legal representation should be required by the courts for
every arrestee.


Would you overturn Gideon v. Wainright?


I haven't read it, but no, probably not.

But I would most likely overturn the recent case where they
somehow decided that murderers under the age of 18 (when they
killed someone) couldn't be put out of our misery. And I'd
find a way to de-fund the war on drugs, despite hating the
things. That dog don't hunt, son.

Now, where's my new gavel? chortle


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========


  #391   Report Post  
Martin H. Eastburn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gunner says...


Jim..they were only considered conservative by the Fringe Left...
Care to give us a listing of who proposed each Justice? EG



Hmm. Let's see, reagan got two of them, nixon got at least one,
if those guys count as fringe left you need to do some serious
thinking about your positions.

Jim


Remember Jim - the President doesn't get his choice. It was once legal knowledge only
way, but now politics are considered. It has been a long time since 'normal'
hearings were held. Think of the nominees that were NEVER called and then those
that were not 'consented'.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
  #392   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:04:00 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article ,
says...


One should further note..that murder has the lowest repeat rate of any
criminal behavior. Most murders are done in a "moment of passion" and
the repeat rate is nearly zero. We are not talking about gang members
or serial nut cases here.


In effect you're agreeing with court here. If you read the decision, one
point that's made is the the impulsive nature and poor judgement of
teens as a mitigating factor.

Ned Simmons


No..Im not stating my position on it one way or another except to say
Im not a fan of Capital punishment. I did want to set the record
straight however about the effects of the new ruling.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #393   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Mar 2005 10:45:23 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Jim..they were only considered conservative by the Fringe Left...
Care to give us a listing of who proposed each Justice? EG


Hmm. Let's see, reagan got two of them, nixon got at least one,
if those guys count as fringe left you need to do some serious
thinking about your positions.

Jim


So there are 3. The other 6?

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #394   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:35 GMT, Johan wrote:

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:22:20 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:



Your comment was regarding in effect, we execute minors. Which was
completely incorrect.


Well we *could*, until a few days ago, if not for the fact
that the justice system is so slow. I'm sure you're not
saying that the slower we apprehend, try, and run out the
appeals, the lower the age of responsibility.



We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

Just setting the record straight.


Fair enough.


I should further note..that Im not a fan of capital punishment, so I
don't have much of a dog in this fight.

On the other hand..I do believe in exile.


Then we aren't so far apart. They should put us in charge
of corrections. g

Ned Simmons


I still like the idea of old-fashioned outlawry: Refuse to obey the law,
forfeit its protection as well.

Not a prayer of it happening in contemporary USA though.

Where're a few good Norsemen when you need 'em? Not a Thing to be had
anywhere!


Indeed. Buy Madagascar or someplace similar and simply turning the
convicts loose to fend for themselves, along with tools, concret and
whatnot, would cost us little money, take a hell of a load off the
taxpayers and be humane.

Of course one would have to provide medical care, which would be
simple..perhaps H1-B visas? G and manditory sterilization of male
and female prisoners before turning them loose..

Since its estimated at least 25% of the prison population is actually
innocent of the crime(s) they were convicted of, this would still
allow society to retrieve them if they were found innocent.

Giving them a dirt nap tends to be one way.

Gunner


Lathe Dementia. Recognized as one of the major sub-strains of the
all-consuming virus, Packratitis. Usual symptoms easily recognized
and normally is contracted for life. Can be very contagious.
michael
  #395   Report Post  
pyotr filipivich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Larry Jaques
wrote back on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:07:59
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

No doubt some of them were indeed guilty of the crimes they
had been charged with. What's worse, knowing that they're back
out on the street - or knowing that you live in a country where
a man who cannot read or write, and cannot afford a lawyer, can
be convicted of a crime and sent to jail?


What does any one of those things have to do with the others?
Our justice system, such as it is, says that ignorance is no
excuse. And poor folks get free legal representation.


Now. That was the whole point of Gideon v. Wainright: you have the
right to lawyer, if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided for
you.

As for the ignorance and unlettered often getting the wrong end of the
deal, that too is unfortunately part of the way things work. Chuck Colson
writes of when he was in prison, and was asked for help by one of his
fellow inmates. Now Colson, being a hot shot legal type himself, knew what
kind of trouble _he_ could get into, for practicing law while a felon. But
when he saw what the guy had written, he said to himself "this guy hasn't a
clue as to what happened, is happening, or what he can do about it." And
proceeded to help this guy as much as he could, putting that high price
education of his to work "pro bono."

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."


  #396   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:00:00 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

Indeed. Buy Madagascar or someplace similar and simply turning the
convicts loose to fend for themselves, along with tools, concret and
whatnot, would cost us little money, take a hell of a load off the
taxpayers and be humane.


Of course one would have to provide medical care, which would be
simple..perhaps H1-B visas? G


Are you turning -blue- today, sir? You sound just like a BHL.
duckin', big time


and manditory sterilization of male
and female prisoners before turning them loose..


Poke the tiger before freeing it, eh?


Since its estimated at least 25% of the prison population is actually
innocent of the crime(s) they were convicted of, this would still
allow society to retrieve them if they were found innocent.


WHAT?


Giving them a dirt nap tends to be one way.


There ya go. Much cheaper (If you rule out the million bucks
and decade it costs to do so) and "more humane."


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========
  #397   Report Post  
Johan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Gunner wrote:



Indeed. Buy Madagascar or someplace similar and simply turning the
convicts loose to fend for themselves, along with tools, concret and
whatnot, would cost us little money, take a hell of a load off the
taxpayers and be humane.


Welcome to Coventry, your new home by the sea!

But what of the lemurs? Who'll save the lemurs?!?


Of course one would have to provide medical care, which would be
simple..perhaps H1-B visas? G and manditory sterilization of male
and female prisoners before turning them loose..


Nah, sooner or later a doctor or two will turn up.


Since its estimated at least 25% of the prison population is actually
innocent of the crime(s) they were convicted of, this would still
allow society to retrieve them if they were found innocent.


Good idea. Give them basic tools and materials and let them form their
own society since they apparently couldn't function in their previous
one.

Early cities were built by hand labor: They'd have a chance to start
their own.

The various state lotteries could take bets on how long it would take
for some form of government to be established, even if only gang lords?


Giving them a dirt nap tends to be one way.


Ayup. Kinda hard to rectify that kind of mistake.

I'd like to see some kind of review of all death sentences -- besides
the procedural appeals that is -- to at least evaluate all the evidence
of the trial(s). I would want a review panel to have the power to
commute if they thought their was the slightest chance the jury could
have made a mistake.

I think some criminals do need killin' yer honor, but they're pretty
rare IMHO.

Then off to Coventry with them!

I'm just a little leery of the justice system sometimes: I'd have to
have damn near ironclad proof of guilt to vote for a death penalty.

It irks me when police or prosecutors claim they got the right person,
even in the face of overwhelming evidence they didn't. Worse, I've heard
some say when interviewed: "Well, maybe soandso didn't commit _this_
particular crime we got a conviction on, but he/she did commit others we
couldn't prove."

What unbelievable ****ing arrogance! If you can't prove guilt, the
person isn't guilty. I thought that was how the system was supposed to
work. That saying about letting a hundred guilty go free rather than
punishing one innocent person -- anybody recall that?
  #398   Report Post  
Johan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:35 GMT, Johan wrote:

I still like the idea of old-fashioned outlawry: Refuse to obey the law,
forfeit its protection as well.

Where're a few good Norsemen when you need 'em? Not a Thing to be had
anywhere!


Yes; my Viking ancestors would be disgusted at what we've done to their
"jury of 12 peers" concept.


Yea, verily!

And you didn't even groan at the Thing thing.
  #399   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:44 GMT, Johan wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:35 GMT, Johan wrote:

I still like the idea of old-fashioned outlawry: Refuse to obey the law,
forfeit its protection as well.

Where're a few good Norsemen when you need 'em? Not a Thing to be had
anywhere!


Yes; my Viking ancestors would be disgusted at what we've done to their
"jury of 12 peers" concept.


Yea, verily!
And you didn't even groan at the Thing thing.


Nope, it was an accurate use of the word. If you meant humor as well,
I missed it, sorry to say.

Dave

  #400   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

On 3 Mar 2005 10:45:23 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Jim..they were only considered conservative by the Fringe Left...
Care to give us a listing of who proposed each Justice? EG


Hmm. Let's see, reagan got two of them, nixon got at least one,
if those guys count as fringe left you need to do some serious
thinking about your positions.

Jim


So there are 3. The other 6?


Rhenquist - Nixon

Stevens - Ford

O'Connor - Reagan

Souter - Bush I

Thomas - Bush I

Kennedy - Reagan

Scalia - Reagan

Breyer - Clinton

Ginsburg - Clinton

My friend, if you disagree with any decision the court makes
it's because you disagree with the republican choices for
justices. Because all but two of them were appointed by
your buddies on the RIGHT.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
««««««NEW AND UNLOCKED CELL PHONES FOR ONLY US$40»»»»»»» Paulo Electronics 0 January 2nd 05 03:48 AM
Are there any REALLY good cordless phones out there? Dana Electronics Repair 6 January 23rd 04 08:59 PM
Headsets for cordless phones Lloyd Randall Electronics Repair 8 December 11th 03 02:59 PM
Cell Phone Jammer Loose Cannon Electronics Repair 26 November 23rd 03 02:10 AM
Chasing computer wiring (Cat-5) into plaster over brick wall Zymurgy UK diy 69 August 26th 03 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"