DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Stanley "Tookie" Williams.. Thoughts?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/13/2005 03:52:13 PM · #76
Originally posted by Flash:

And those fighting the Revolution had a minority view that religious persecution and taxation without representation was unjust.


The American Revolution had nothing to do with religious persecution. It was entirely a secular revolution. It may be true that the original European settlers of America were fleeing religious persecution (it really isn't, since the Vikings were here way earlier, and the Spanish settled Florida long before the pilgrims came) but speaking of the Pilgrims, while this may be true it's also true that the original colonies in the Northeast were rather dramatic in their persecution of those who did not share their religious beliefs; that was one of the more intolerant communities every founded by man. And even as late as the mid-19th century "alternative" religious beliefs were hounded out of "civilized" communities; see the history of the Mormons.

To even imply that the US was founded by people in favor of religious "freedom" is to completely twist history; these people were zealots, for the most part. Or at least their leaders were... Look into the Salem witch trials...

Robt.
12/13/2005 03:55:31 PM · #77
Originally posted by bear_music:

....it's also true that the original colonies in the Northeast were rather dramatic in their persecution of those who did not share their religious beliefs....Robt.


True, true! In fact, Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, who was run out of Boston for being a Baptist (heathen!) instead of a Quaker.
12/13/2005 03:56:26 PM · #78
There are big problems in evolving societies. There is also a fine line that separates the human from the animal. It stands no worthwhile reason to examine motives when innocent people are killed by barbarians. Those that seek this understanding are under the impression that the barbarian's life is more important then the innocent that was deposed. This is a misguided path. We are not addressing crimes of passion but solely the innocent being put to death.

When anybody crosses the line to kill for no good reason, no matter how young, you are out of the ball game as far as life is concerned. There is a temerity which is part of the character and certain to rise again.

Notice how the victim is so quickly forgotten and all effort is placed on saving the life of the perpetrator. Does a nation fare better because it chooses to keep or execute the garbage? There are two strong school and none can convince the other, except to say that those that choose to keep the garbage alive believe themselves to be more understanding of criminals.

In my book taking the life of the innocent is the gravest crime with no forgiveness. What you do with these criminals is of no concern at all to me. I am just surprised to see the time, money and effort wasted in shielding the creeps and it all becomes a discussion about them while the innocent remain buried and practically out of the picture.
12/13/2005 03:58:26 PM · #79
i find it very difficult to stay civil when people with silly opinion get to kill other people... luckily i live in a country in which the state has more of a wide perspective on social issues and can make rational decisions on matter of life and death... unfortunately i can not say that about the USA where irrational emotion rules (for murderers or state matters)

with an emotional scream i say f-u to all who support institutionalised murder

12/13/2005 04:01:19 PM · #80
Originally posted by moondoggie:

Originally posted by theSaj:



... modern Europe has a long history of anti-weapons. It stems from an even longer history of anti-weapons in which Lords endeavored to prevent arms being in the hands of commoners.

The EU has declared no death penalty, so much of Europe is following that, especially nations which desire to be members of the EU.


Saj, while I dont agree with many of your points, your thoughts are well thought out and well articulated. Nice to see us all engaging in healthy exchange of ideas in a rational and positive manner. That's what freedom is all about.


i am not sure that this represents a well thought out argument as the modern eu's prohibition on the death penalty is developed out of modern theories on human rights and has nothing to do with rights to bear arms.
12/13/2005 04:03:55 PM · #81
Originally posted by Pano:

i find it very difficult to stay civil when people with silly opinion get to kill other people... luckily i live in a country in which the state has more of a wide perspective on social issues and can make rational decisions on matter of life and death... unfortunately i can not say that about the USA where irrational emotion rules (for murderers or state matters)

with an emotional scream i say f-u to all who support institutionalised murder


Would that be a heroin induced scream?
12/13/2005 04:11:44 PM · #82
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

[quote=Pano] i find it very difficult to stay civil when people with silly opinion get to kill other people... luckily i live in a country in which the state has more of a wide perspective on social issues and can make rational decisions on matter of life and death... unfortunately i can not say that about the USA where irrational emotion rules (for murderers or state matters)

with an emotional scream i say f-u to all who support institutionalised murder


Well, I don't live in Amsterdam..so I will refrain from saying f-u all to whatever crazy shit you guys do which I am positive you do...because we all do :-/

But, In the U.S..the people say how the nuthouse is ran..and we say if you kill somebody with a shotgun to their back while they are just trying to make enough money working to pay their electric bill or school tuition..you get the chair..or some other equally effective method of sending you on your way.

Before you f/u a country..live there a while.

12/13/2005 04:14:15 PM · #83
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

They were voted in to power.


So, killing the Jews was just fine since they were legally voted into power. Now it all makes sense...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


I think that the point is that it is fairly barbaric to kill people for crimes comitted at a time when they were not mentally mature


I've never met a 16 yr old of full mental faculties (as opposed to mentally retarded) who was not capable of understanding that murder was wrong.

Most governments operate on a more rational basis and do not permit the matter to be open to "democratic" debate.[/quote]

Okay, I love this....so things should be democratic oh wait no they're not. "We who are lofty are wiser than you...we have deemed what is best for you. You shall obey. You have no recourse or say in the matter. Eat your veggies."

It's for reasons like that, for which we revolted btw.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Abortion is a separate issue.


Not really, the issue is about when it's acceptable to kill life or not. And what determines when it is susceptible. One could argue that indeed a fetus is not a viable member of society. And one can just as easily argue that a criminal is not a viable member of society.

LegalBeagle, I am totally willing to give up the death penalty if I can get an reasonably absolute assurance of a "life imprisonment". (I understand a criminal can escape. I will accept that risk to my family. But I won't accept a risk of them being released.)

Nor do I support pandering them with X-boxes and Cable TV.

Originally posted by "Pano":

with an emotional scream i say f-u to all who support institutionalised murder


Opinions are such a pain, so subject to interpretation. As such, what defines "institutionalized murder". It's very different to you and to me. And if "instutionalized murder" in any form or fashion should be ceased. I must really ask the Dutch why "[s]ince 1970 more than a million abortions have been done in the Netherlands." (At least Americans are more consistent in our inconsistencies.)

;)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

i am not sure that this represents a well thought out argument as the modern eu's prohibition on the death penalty is developed out of modern theories on human rights and has nothing to do with rights to bear arms.


Hmm...last I knew the death penalty in the U.S. had no relation to our right to bear arms. Excepting to prevent it's abuse in the case that the state just started executing at whim the people would have the ability to rise up to their own defense against the government.

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 16:25:08.
12/13/2005 04:35:12 PM · #84
Originally posted by hokie:



Before you f/u a country..live there a while.


my f/u was not directed at americans, i said people, i know plenty of americans who do not support the death penalty
12/13/2005 04:40:01 PM · #85
Originally posted by Pano:

Originally posted by hokie:



Before you f/u a country..live there a while.


my f/u was not directed at americans, i said people, i know plenty of americans who do not support the death penalty


My only problem with the death penalty is that it takes to long. Take the recent trial of "BTK" a confessed murderer should walked out of the courtroom and hung. Why spend money on trash.
12/13/2005 04:40:49 PM · #86
Originally posted by theSaj:

So, killing the Jews was just fine since they were legally voted into power. Now it all makes sense...


Erm no - just that the supposed lack of arms that you said was the reason that the Nazis came into power, had no impact on how they came to power: they were voted to power in democratic elections.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I've never met a 16 yr old of full mental faculties (as opposed to mentally retarded) who was not capable of understanding that murder was wrong.


I did not realise that you had studied child psychology. Where would you draw the line when children become capable of understanding a criminal act and all of its consequences? When should we judge a child in the same manner as a mentally fully developed adult? Most societies make the distinction between the ages of 16-18.

Originally posted by theSaj:



Okay, I love this....so things should be democratic oh wait no they're not. "We who are lofty are wiser than you...we have deemed what is best for you. You shall obey. You have no recourse or say in the matter. Eat your veggies."

It's for reasons like that, for which we revolted btw.


What? I have commented on numerous times about the shortcomings of democracy as a concept - the dictatorship of the majority is one shortfall, and one that must be guarded against where rational thought dictates that society will function more coherently by ignoring the wishes of the majority. One of the ways this is done is by having a representative democracy (you get to choose your representative, not his or her policies).
Originally posted by theSaj:

One could argue that indeed a fetus is not a viable member of society. And one can just as easily argue that a criminal is not a viable member of society.
they are similar in that both involve right to life, but revolve around very different arguments. Abortion one revolves around a mother's right to control her body vs whether a foetus has a right to life, and the other revolves around roles of punishment and retribution in society (where the only competing right is the feelings of the victims).

Originally posted by theSaj:

LegalBeagle, I am totally willing to give up the death penalty if I can get an reasonably absolute assurance of a "life imprisonment". (I understand a criminal can escape. I will accept that risk to my family. But I won't accept a risk of them being released.)


There are plenty of people who are in prison with no prospect of release. You do not tend to hear about them, as they are not v newsworthy. A UK example is serial killer of young women, Rose West.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Nor do I support pandering them with X-boxes and Cable TV.
Another totally different issue: how do you treat prisoners? Very different issues again, but slightly off topic and no time...

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 16:41:27.
12/13/2005 04:48:11 PM · #87
OK, and with this I bow out. I will conclude by asking people to realize the next time anybody hears a member of the "religious right" invoke Christianity to support the death penalty, he/she is not speaking for all of us. The Liberal Christian is a critter who gets very little airtime (except in caricature, ie. Rev. Jackson), but we exist and perhaps one day we will pull our beloved faith back to golden moderation...
12/13/2005 04:49:04 PM · #88
Originally posted by Pano:

Originally posted by hokie:



Before you f/u a country..live there a while.


my f/u was not directed at americans, i said people, i know plenty of americans who do not support the death penalty


Just because someone supports a person reaping what they have sewn does not make them a bad person.

Let me get this straight....

If good old children's book writer Santa "Tookie" Clause had just finished off your brother with a shotgun blast to the back in the local Amsterdam 7-eleven...you gonna tell me you are gonna let him just walk on out..or ..better yet...you gonna request that he stay put while an officer comes and escorts him to the local "Hanoi Hilton" if you have the chance to take care of business yourself?

If you say yes...will you sign my hardcopy of "The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi" because you are Ghandi reincarnated...or is that Shirley Mclean? (sorry for the shirley reference..a cheap plea for a laugh) :-/

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 16:54:48.
12/13/2005 05:03:25 PM · #89
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Pano:

Originally posted by hokie:



Before you f/u a country..live there a while.


my f/u was not directed at americans, i said people, i know plenty of americans who do not support the death penalty


Just because someone supports a person reaping what they have sewn does not make them a bad person.

Let me get this straight....

If good old children's book writer Santa "Tookie" Clause had just finished off your brother with a shotgun blast to the back in the local Amsterdam 7-eleven...you gonna tell me you are gonna let him just walk on out..or ..better yet...you gonna request that he stay put while an officer comes and escorts him to the local "Hanoi Hilton" if you have the chance to take care of business yourself?

If you say yes...will you sign my hardcopy of "The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi" because you are Ghandi reincarnated...or is that Shirly Mclean? (sorry for the shirly reference..a cheap plea for a laugh) :-/


i think you did not read my original post, we can not trust our selves when we are in a highly emotional situation to make the right decision and that is why am happy the I have such institutions (as police), so that they can objectively make a decision in those situation..
it is just a shame when those institutions are just as crazy as the murderer, or even worst as most murderers are low scum with little to no-education

In any case i have come down now and i retract my f/u
12/13/2005 05:15:23 PM · #90
Originally posted by Pano:



i think you did not read my original post, we can not trust our selves when we are in a highly emotional situation to make the right decision and that is why am happy the I have such institutions (as police), so that they can objectively make a decision in those situation..
it is just a shame when those institutions are just as crazy as the murderer, or even worst as most murderers are low scum with little to no-education

In any case i have come down now and i retract my f/u


I appreciate your willingness to discuss this :-)

Look...I agree with you just about 100%

In my perfect world, I am just like Jesus...Calm...tolerant and patient.

Maybe as a 42 year old parent I have become jaded..who knows. Perhaps I have been allowed to be pushed away from my more "moderate and Christan philisophical side" by all the hand wringing over a professed gang leader and convicted murderer with little regard to the 4 people brutally murdered.

If we really wanted to go after "Institutions" we should go after the media and publicity insitutions that make modern folk hero's out of society's most pathetic examples of humans instead of focusing on the people who are terrorized by these people everyday of their lives.

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 17:15:58.
12/13/2005 05:46:42 PM · #91
Originally posted by Pano:

i find it very difficult to stay civil when people with silly opinion get to kill other people... luckily i live in a country in which the state has more of a wide perspective on social issues and can make rational decisions on matter of life and death... unfortunately i can not say that about the USA where irrational emotion rules (for murderers or state matters)

with an emotional scream i say f-u to all who support institutionalised murder


Who would you be screaming at? Since the topic is capital punishment, and it is legal in the US, and murder is "the unlawful killing of one human by another", capital punishment is not murder.

Its also interesting that you would accuse others of letting irrational emotion rule, when by you're own admission you're the one acting emotionally.
12/13/2005 06:34:53 PM · #92
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Erm no - just that the supposed lack of arms that you said was the reason that the Nazis came into power, had no impact on how they came to power: they were voted to power in democratic elections.


Actually, I said "But the NAZI rise to power was facilitated in part by the restriction of weapons."

I did not say that was how. But that it facilitated it's rise to power. Was the NAZI party elected. Yes it was. But it eventually rose beyond the power of that system which had elected it and did away with said system.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


I did not realise that you had studied child psychology. Where would you draw the line when children become capable of understanding a criminal act and all of its consequences?


There is a lot you do not realize....

As to an answer, I actually believe it varies from individual to individual. I believe for myself it was around the age of 6 or 7. I believe for others it can be much later. I believe that 16 yr olds have such understanding. Or should. And if they don't at 16 they're not likely to at 18 either. So why do we divide at 18? I believe the 18 is more derived by mothers than anything else, it was an age upon the passage of which a mother's son could be drafted into armed defense. And it was deemed unfair to be able to draft a man who could not vote. So it was deemed the voting age.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

the dictatorship of the majority is one shortfall, and one that must be guarded against where rational thought dictates that society will function more coherently by ignoring the wishes of the majority.


Yes, but who has the right to determine what is rational and what is not? You, have voiced on more than one occasion that Democracy has shortfalls, I agree. Democracy is a form of tyranny in which 51% rule 49% by deciding what is rational.

However, what you propose is much worse. Rather than a majority, you determine that a minority should determine rationality. Should it be 1 king? a small politiburo? a aristocracy? or yes...i know, a so called educated intelligentsia? or just those who agree with your opinion of what is or is not rational?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Abortion one revolves around a mother's right to control her body vs whether a foetus has a right to life


Neigh, both revolve around "responsibility and consequences", perhaps a difficult concept to understand. Said woman's actions bear consequences. The consequences of which should be born by the woman who made the choice. The innoncent child (the fetus which has been scientifically proven without any shadow of a doubt to NOT be a part of the woman's body - don't believe me, run a DNA test).

Likewise, the question of the death penalty is also in regards to the consequences and responsibilities of one's actions.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


and the other revolves around roles of punishment and retribution in society (where the only competing right is the feelings of the victims).


If that was the only reason, then there would be no point to have laws barring "cruel and unusual punishment". If retribution for the victims is our only reason - there'd be a helluva lot more than mere death penalty. (And trust me a lot of people would watch a rapist get castrated by one pissed off dad on live national TV and be cheering all the way. But we dictate the punishment not be cruel or unusual. That's not for vengeance's sake but for justice's sake.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


There are plenty of people who are in prison with no prospect of release. You do not tend to hear about them, as they are not v newsworthy. A UK example is serial killer of young women, Rose West.


As I said, that may be the case in U.K. and much of Europe. But in the U.S. a "life sentence" does not equal a life sentence. There are probably thousands and thousands of criminals who received life sentences and were later released.

And if the U.K. has a system that prevents such, and it were adopted here in the U.S. Than I'd be much more prone to an abolishment of the death penalty. Also, save me some tax dollars, make them labor to support themselves and let's save some $$$ and not buy Xboxes and cable TV. Instead, we'll use the money for grants so that inner city students can go to college.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Another totally different issue: how do you treat prisoners? Very different issues again, but slightly off topic and no time...


It's all related. As for how I would treat prisoners. Much like boot camp. There wouldn't be TV and eccentricities. They would probably work 8-12 hour shifts (just like the many Americans paying to house them). On the other hand, I would also like to see a stop to certain common prison abuses (Prison rape, etc.) - these should not have a blind-eye turned to them.

*****

I too, am tired of the pandering to criminals. There was an incident in my hometown where an individual refused to pull over for police. They pursued him across townlines into my town (perpetrator's hometown). The police got out of the car once they had him pulled over. The individual tried to back over the officer so he fired several shots killing Malik Jones.

Now there were protests, there were arms raised up, there was exclamations of police brutality, a mother marching with her supporters. (In truth, the mother is the one I blame the most.) There has been a movement to name a park after him and to erect a monument.

This same individual was a drug dealer, resisting arrest, endeavoring to run over the officer. How many mother's lost their son's to drug over-doses this individual sold. I don't recall him, but a classmate of mine mentioned he went to our school (small school of about 150 students) and was expelled for punching the principal. He was NOT a nice guy. Nor was he a good man. He was, a part of the plague of gang and drug violence. Is it tragic he is dead? yes...absolutely!

But is this the type of man to make a memorial and name a park after? to honor a criminal killed in his crimes.... ???

No way.....enough with the pandering, it does no one any good.

12/13/2005 06:42:49 PM · #93
Actually....a minority already rule this country.

First, a minority of registered voters actually vote...so a small majority of the minority choose the leaders.

Second, as a member of media institutions for over 20 years I know this much...a vocal minority of editors, publishers, producers and people with money to influence these media brokers control opinion.

So anyone in the United States that doesn't already understand that the minority rules the majority and this rule is at the point of a gun is living in a fantasy world.

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 18:48:57.
12/13/2005 06:57:34 PM · #94
In summary... from this tread I have so far learned the following

1. Democrats live and read the New Testament of the Bible and the GOP only the Old Testament.

2. If there are 10 people in a room and you discuss the death penelty, you get 100 opinions and very, very few facts.

3. The Justice system does not work, not if it takes 24 years to check if the right decision was made in the first place.

4. Finally, hokie in saying the minority rules the majority, is talking more sense than most. Democracy is nothing but a fantacy and in most cases a very sticky wet dream.
12/13/2005 07:01:38 PM · #95
5. gibun is almost as cynical as I am.

Pretty good summary there...
12/13/2005 07:05:22 PM · #96
Guys, if the world holds it's collective breath for over 24 hours to find out if "The Terminator" Arnold Whoopinkoff is going to whack a guy or not...you know we all live in a surreal world.
12/13/2005 07:40:24 PM · #97
Originally posted by theSaj:

Actually, I said "But the NAZI rise to power was facilitated in part by the restriction of weapons."

I did not say that was how. But that it facilitated it's rise to power. Was the NAZI party elected. Yes it was. But it eventually rose beyond the power of that system which had elected it and did away with said system.


Yes - the Nazi party rose to power on a powerful political message, political manouvering and not because (even if it were true) people had no weapons.

Originally posted by theSaj:


There is a lot you do not realize....

As to an answer, I actually believe it varies from individual to individual. I believe for myself it was around the age of 6 or 7. I believe for others it can be much later. I believe that 16 yr olds have such understanding. Or should. And if they don't at 16 they're not likely to at 18 either. So why do we divide at 18? I believe the 18 is more derived by mothers than anything else, it was an age upon the passage of which a mother's son could be drafted into armed defense. And it was deemed unfair to be able to draft a man who could not vote. So it was deemed the voting age.


I have read (though irritatingly cannot find) studies that address developmental psychology in adolescents and one that anaylsed the adolescent's capability to understand emotions being expressed in photographs of individual faces. With age, the ability develops signficantly, until the age of 20-21. At the age of 18, there is still a social development to be attained, such as the ability to confidently distinguish between the face of someone who is confused and someone who is angry. This example sticks in my mind, as there are case law examples of teenagers reacting or over reacting in scenarios where they mis-read the situation, and this lack of ability to discern facial signals plays a part. So an 18 year old is more likely to mis read a situation more regularly than a 21 year old. There is a significant variance with youths of younger ages.

If you accept this (I cannot find the reference), then maybe you would accept that a 15 year old might misread a situation where a friend looks threatened, when in fact he is dealing with someone who is confused, and over-reacts, unbeknownst to him inappropriately. Should that teenager be treated as an adult, or as a teenager with his limited facial cognition ability?

This is just one example among many ways in which the mind develops over time. Should we take any of that into account, or treat all children as if they were fully responsible adults? If we consider that most youths (8 y.o. you excepted) do not have the same mental capacity as an adult, should they be susceptible to the same ultimate sanction?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Yes, but who has the right to determine what is rational and what is not? You, have voiced on more than one occasion that Democracy has shortfalls, I agree. Democracy is a form of tyranny in which 51% rule 49% by deciding what is rational.

However, what you propose is much worse. Rather than a majority, you determine that a minority should determine rationality. Should it be 1 king? a small politiburo? a aristocracy? or yes...i know, a so called educated intelligentsia? or just those who agree with your opinion of what is or is not rational?


How about our elected representatives?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Abortion one revolves around a mother's right to control her body vs whether a foetus has a right to life


Originally posted by theSaj:

Neigh,


I will leave that to you...

Originally posted by theSaj:



both revolve around "responsibility and consequences", perhaps a difficult concept to understand. Said woman's actions bear consequences. The consequences of which should be born by the woman who made the choice. The innoncent child (the fetus which has been scientifically proven without any shadow of a doubt to NOT be a part of the woman's body - don't believe me, run a DNA test).

Likewise, the question of the death penalty is also in regards to the consequences and responsibilities of one's actions.


Not quite sure where you are going with this one: women should be solely responsible for bearing the consequences of having sex? I think that the 1960s and the womens' rights movement might have passed right by your household without stopping. You know (or should know) that the debate is much larger than whether a foetus has different dna to its mother (of course it does). Its issues are complex, concern the right to life, but that is just about the only unforced similarity between the debates.

Originally posted by theSaj:

As I said, that may be the case in U.K. and much of Europe. But in the U.S. a "life sentence" does not equal a life sentence. There are probably thousands and thousands of criminals who received life sentences and were later released.

And if the U.K. has a system that prevents such, and it were adopted here in the U.S. Than I'd be much more prone to an abolishment of the death penalty. Also, save me some tax dollars, make them labor to support themselves and let's save some $$$ and not buy Xboxes and cable TV. Instead, we'll use the money for grants so that inner city students can go to college.


Why put so much effort into supporting the death penalty if you think that it has no benefits over life sentencing, when it means more expense, places the US squarely in the crosshairs (as such!) of every human rights organisations, and provides no option of reversal when the US is almost certainly executing innocents (16 identified here: //www.quixote.org/ej/grip/reasonabledoubt/index.html)?

plus,

Originally posted by return no. 1 on Google::


//www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=481

One of society's best kept secrets is that the length of sentences which people would support over the death penalty are already in place and functioning in most of the United States. Forty-five states (plus the District of Columbia) presently employ a life sentence in which there is no possibility of parole for at least 25 years. Thirty-three of those jurisdictions use a life sentence in which parole is never possible. Yet parole information is often withheld from jurors in capital cases and the use of these severe sentences is unknown to most of the public. As one recent study concerning the public's knowledge about the death penalty concluded, "[A] majority of Americans have taken a very strong position on an issue about which they are substantially uninformed." [4]


Message edited by author 2005-12-13 19:44:07.
12/13/2005 07:53:10 PM · #98
This is Wrong
I am a conservative who fully supports the Death Penalty like the Majority of Americans. I think it is the right thing considering the alternatives.
However, sometimes we need to think it through to the end.

Tookie was a bad man, who did bad things, and help to start a lot of pain and suffering. But this man has been nominated for the nobel piece prize 6 times. He could have done a lot of good in the future from inside his cell.

It is too late now to do anything but say "what if", but we clearly made a mistake in this case. I hope someone can pick up his tasks and help out future generations, otherwise we will all pay for this death.
12/13/2005 08:00:24 PM · #99
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Its issues are complex, concern the right to life, but that is just about the only unforced similarity between the debates.


I will contradict myself here and identify a further link: there is a controversial analysis in the book Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner.

The titular rogue economist identifies a discernable and direct statistical link between the 17th-18th anniversary of cases in individual states authorising abortion (and all states following Roe. v Wade) and the dramatic downturn in crime experienced in those states contrary to all expectations and forecasts. That analysis far outweighs any effect that extra spending on police forces or "zero tolerence" may have had. The causal link being that crimes tend to be perpetrated by youths starting at the age of 18, and important influencing factors towards crime are the instability of the home and lack of wealth. Mothers facing that scenario were more likely to have an abortion after it was legalised than before. There were fewer children born into a situation where their home life included factors that increased the likelihood that they would offend. 18 years later, crime rates drop dramatically.

This is an interesting example of cause and effect, though it does not make the necessary moral judgment to be a significant factor in the abortion debate.

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 20:07:07.
12/13/2005 08:19:29 PM · #100
The Nobel Peace is administered way from the left. Arafat and Carter etc. But then a man who cold bloodedly killed innocent people is right up their alley. No one in theur right mind gives any validity to the Nobel. Besides, the most Liberal Court in the entire country did not grant his life. The only thing lost in this entire equation is a criminal who won't be able to do it again. Yet, he tried while in Jail by throwing acid at the guards.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/30/2020 10:21:48 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 03/30/2020 10:21:48 AM EDT.