Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
|
#372
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
|
#382
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#384
|
|||
|
|||
|
#385
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#386
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
««««««NEW AND UNLOCKED CELL PHONES FOR ONLY US$40»»»»»»» | Electronics | |||
Are there any REALLY good cordless phones out there? | Electronics Repair | |||
Headsets for cordless phones | Electronics Repair | |||
Cell Phone Jammer | Electronics Repair | |||
Chasing computer wiring (Cat-5) into plaster over brick wall | UK diy |