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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Stanley "Tookie" Williams.. Thoughts?
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 219 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/16/2005 08:45:46 AM · #201
Originally posted by theSaj:

Screw Godwin....Godwin's law is just a liberal statement to avoid dealing with the harsh realities of history and the human tendency toward slippery slopes.


Yeah, Hitler would have said the same thing.
12/16/2005 09:32:39 AM · #202
I was USING Godwin's Law.

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Oh yes. Then could it be A. Hitler was right? Wasn't he "divining the path most beneficial" ?


Godwin's Law, my friend. Godwin's Law. Learn it, live it, love it.
12/16/2005 09:37:43 AM · #203
Originally posted by GeneralE:

hokie -- I don't think the post I was responding to was of the same order as your first example, which I agree is a perfectly valid one.


Well, that is because you and I disagree.
12/16/2005 10:54:06 AM · #204
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

As a rule, evolution relates to a species, not to individuals. The suggestion that there is a smarter branch of the race amongst us is therefore not quite on point: some people will be better genetically disposed towards survival, and their genes will propagate further and improve the race as a whole.


If anything, I would say they would be adapted (or possibly randomly having a beneficial trait thru genetic variance). And there is variance. The higher production of melanin although beneficial in tropic areas is detrimental in near-artic regions.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

For the race to "split" there would have to be a barrier that results in the better genes not being available to people on one or other side of the barrier.


This, I think one has to be very cautious with. As there have been barriers. In fact, various continental barriers were arguments made early on 2 centuries ago that led to accepting of very dangerous ideas.

Recently a study identified a gene that is associated with heightened intelligence. Were all those individuals seperated and placed together, would it not create a more intelligent gene pool?

However, my argument against this from an evolutionary standpoint is that same benefit should be able to develop independently out of necessity or benefit elsewhere.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


If and when the genetic structure is understood better, it may be that we can identify classes within society that are genetically superior than others


See the above statement is what I fined extremely dangerous. Because I do believe we will eventually understand the genetic structure with greatly more clarity. However, I do not think that such differences denote superiority merely variance.

For example, take an idiot savante who can calculate calendar dates and math at levels I can't even type into my calculator fast enough to compete with. And yet, can't tie their shoes. Am I a superior being? or more simply do my strength merely lie within different traits. And that is my point.

We KNOW too much to deny variance within the individual. But we're so afraid due to the past eugenic conflicts to really address such. The idea is not, that Michael Jordan regardless is a better athlete than my genetics will ever allow me to be in the aspects of running, jumping, etc. But to realize that we are equals, with our talents and strengths in different areas. A white blood cell is useless without red blood cells. And red blood cells will die with out the protection of the white blood cells.

In the christian perspective (yes a philosophical understanding is derived in part for a metaphorical reference of the physical applied to the socio-spiritual but I do see the relevancy from the mere logic standpoint so I thought I'd share) there is the concept of all members being of one body but different members. But all being equal. If everyone were hands hands it'd be much hard to walk. And if everyone was a mouth we'd never get anywhere.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


the environmental factors are already understood to be hugely significant.

Agreed, IMHO, environmental factors determine weather talen is leveraged or not. Michael Jordan has all the genetic talent to be a great basketball player. But whether he devotes himself to the skills, to maintaining his physical condition, etc. is based on environment.

Likewise, someone with a genius IQ who is never taught how to read, clearly demonstrates the environmental factor.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


"Gattaca" is an interesting film that explores some of these themes.


It was, it showed that environmental factor. Where someone who was supposed to have had a planned edge in fact was unable to compete against someone with an unknown quantity (may or may not have been an edge) but who clearly, in his environment applied more determination so as to take what ever level of edge he had and to sharpen it to it's fullest extent.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

this does once again rather rely on your anecdotal experience being more valid than the opinion of a qualified doctor...


Nope, this does not. As the fact that the American Medical Assoc. came out and stated they do not regard there to be any medical reason that necessitates a partial birth abortion. So the vast majority (and yes, we know the majority issue) stated that it actually poses heightened risk with no benefits. Particularly, as it would at that point be safer to simply give birth properly and have the baby whisked away for adoption.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


If you would waver in your support in that situation, can you suffer to live in a society where that occasionally happens?


Not quite sure,...prefer to live of course. But I think I'd rather die an innoncent man than know a 100 violent criminals were released upon hapless victims because of me.
12/16/2005 12:40:32 PM · #205
Originally posted by theSaj:

This, I think one has to be very cautious with.


yes - that is what I said.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


If and when the genetic structure is understood better, it may be that we can identify classes within society that are genetically superior than others


See the above statement is what I fined extremely dangerous. Because I do believe we will eventually understand the genetic structure with greatly more clarity. However, I do not think that such differences denote superiority merely variance.


My statement is a statement of future possibility, whereas yours were concerning people who had already "evolved" greater intelligence and "talents" - I think that my statement is the safer statement, but (and because it) relates to a real issue as opposed to an invented one.

Originally posted by theSaj:


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


"Gattaca" is an interesting film that explores some of these themes.


It was, it showed that environmental factor. Where someone who was supposed to have had a planned edge in fact was unable to compete against someone with an unknown quantity (may or may not have been an edge) but who clearly, in his environment applied more determination so as to take what ever level of edge he had and to sharpen it to it's fullest extent.


It also protrays a two tier world where the genetically enhanced are lords among the genetically inferior underclass. It poses some difficult questions for contemporary society, where analogies can be found, as well as the near future when genetic selection and designer babies may be a real option.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I think I'd rather die an innoncent man than know a 100 violent criminals were released upon hapless victims because of me.
Except, of course, all you would know is that the system would allow an innocent man to be killed.

You are mixing two issues: the system is stringently applied so as to minimise the risk of innocent people being convicted. The system could be relaxed to enable more convictions, at the cost of more innocent people being convicted.

Innocent people are convicted under whether you minimise the risk or maximise convictions. The issue is whether you still execute those prisoners knowing that some are innocent. You seem to be suggesting that the procedure should be relaxed (allowing more innocent convictions) and execution retained (kill more innocent people) just to make sure that we catch the bad ones.

This is a policy that is effected by some jurisdictions, where the suspicion of guilt . Usually tyrannical dictatorships, but it is one way of doing things.

This directly contradicts your earlier statements that the system should be made more stringent, so as to prevent innocent executions.

You seem to want: a more careful judicial process to prevent innocent people being convicted; a cheaper system because it costs too much; a faster system because it is too slow; a system under which people are convicted more easily; a system that allows innocent people to be freed promptly; but one that will never let a person free on what you perceive to be a technicality. Now let me think what the problem might be here...

Again: surely, if the system is recognised to be fallible in wrongfully convicting innocent people, an irreversible and uncompensatable punishment is not the answer, when an alternative approach is available (I do not advocate letting people go: the bill that outlaws execution would very well invoke mandatory life sentences for appropriate cases).

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 12:40:51.
12/16/2005 01:04:17 PM · #206

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

My statement is a statement of future possibility, whereas yours were concerning people who had already "evolved" greater intelligence and "talents" - I think that my statement is the safer statement, but (and because it) relates to a real issue as opposed to an invented one.


This seems quite real to me...

"Scientists in North Carolina say they have identified a gene that affects IQ, a finding that, if confirmed, would be a significant step toward understanding the genetic basis for intelligence."

//www.azstarnet.com/news/105238

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


This directly contradicts your earlier statements that the system should be made more stringent, so as to prevent innocent executions.


No, you asked me personally for myself. When making decisions for others I am less clear.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

a cheaper system because it costs too much


I don't recall having brought up this argument although I've seen it attributed to me. I mean, of course I'd like more efficient government. And I've stated I want prisoners to work to mitigate their cost to society. Is that what you're referring to?
12/16/2005 01:11:48 PM · #207
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by bear_music:

Wow! Something the Saj and I completely agree on! I think it is ridiculous that Political Correctness has gone so far that it's no longer "acceptable" to recognize genetic differences in human performance. To recognize that they exist is NOT the same thing as to support a program of eugenics designed to breed for certain characteristics. THAT's the slippery slope here.

Robt.


right
Hmmm - I think that this point has to be expressed carefully, and I do not think that theSaj is doing so. I have reconstituted the conversation (apologies for the post length, but hey - if you are still reading this you are used to itů)

Problematic areas are
1. the idea that to a degree, promoters of genocide's philosophy of advancement is correct.
2. that this somehow is related to a purported objective assessment of racial rights.
3. the idea that there may be evolving a "smarter branch of the race"
4. that all members of the species are evolving and that each is doing so differently
5. that we are evolving in respect of "talents".
6. that people speaking to the contrary are just being politically correct.
(highlighted in bold in the conversation)

Evolution is essentially continuous adaptation to an environment over many thousands of generations. Genetic diversity is not a result of evolution, but a prerequisite. Of course, genetic variety cannot be denied. It is not fully understood and the thin ice is where people assume a genetic link where there is none (eg I read about studies into genetic preferences that statistically showed that a preference for coffee appears to be genetically influenced, but the same does not hold true for tea - perhaps not what one would predict if one had only seen the study relating to coffee).

As a rule, evolution relates to a species, not to individuals. The suggestion that there is a smarter branch of the race amongst us is therefore not quite on point: some people will be better genetically disposed towards survival, and their genes will propagate further and improve the race as a whole. For the race to "split" there would have to be a barrier that results in the better genes not being available to people on one or other side of the barrier. That is the start of a difficult path, because the obvious splits that we might recognise are with social and geographically distinct groups. This could easily be abused by claiming, for example, mental superiority of one race over another, whereas studies show that not to be true. Combined with what has to be a limited understanding of how genes work (because mankind knows very little), all kinds of statements could quickly be justified (aka Chinese people have a genetic predisposition towards speaking Chinese - but problematically in relation to propensities towards intelligence, violence and crime).

If and when the genetic structure is understood better, it may be that we can identify classes within society that are genetically superior than others, though genetic propensities will only ever explain part of how we work: the environmental factors are already understood to be hugely significant.

I think that this argument came up in the context of discussion as between male and female biological characteristics. Women's liberation is largely based on reducing the impact of differing male/female biologies, on the premise that women should as far as possible have the same societal rights as men. While the biological distinction cannot (and should not) be ignored, the burden on society of overcoming obstacles to enable a full role for women is vastly overwhelmed by the corresponding contribution to society (IMO).

In respect of eugenics, it is not so much breeding for certain characteristics (biological attraction is just that) but killing people or sterilising them so as to eliminate undesirable characteristics. How far we go with genetic enhancement in the future is a massively debateable subject in itself.

"Gattaca" is an interesting film that explores some of these themes.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Science does not provide answers to moral dilemmas, unfortunately. The value of a human foetus' rights as against its mother's cannot be valued objectively.


Originally posted by theSaj:

Than neither can the value of a Jew's rights be valued objectively to the rights of a German. Or do you not realize that is the fundamental thought behind every mass genocide and massacre the world has seen. The muslim's rights cannot be valued objectively to the rights of the christian (or vice versa).


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I think that all of those are subjective assessments: I do not think that anyone before committing genocide would be taking a valid scientific exercise. It would always be a subjective assessment, as relative rights cannot be assessed objectively.


Originally posted by theSaj:

Really, they thought it was quite based on science and evolution. And frankly, to a degree, there philosophy of advancement is correct.

Recently a gene was discovered that when in males contributes to a higher intellect. So what does this mean? What is the consequences of this discovery. People want to talk equality equality equality. But if there is a genetic advancement that leads to greater intellect. Is there evolving a "smarter branch of the race"? Now, I believe there should be equality in rights, opportunity, respect, and status. And I do not believe that a 200 I.Q.'d genius is any more of a citizen than a 85 I.Q.'d man personally. Though I do believe each individual may excel at different things.


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Eugenics is widely discredited as a science.


Originally posted by theSaj:

I always wondered how science can express that species are evolving and then at the same time express "nope, there are no differences". Anyone who sits and takes a second to really weigh those two statements realizes, one of them is wrong. In truth, I believe it's more of a "PC" issue than anything else. However, that is not to say that an ethnic group is more advanced. But that, if you are going accept the concept of evolution, you must realize that all members of the species are evolving and that each is doing so differently. And will acquire feats or facets necessary to their survival. Or, we've reached a pinnacle and have ceased evolving.

You cannot say "we are evolving" and "we are not evolving" and claim both to be true.


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I am not quite sure how to approach your suggestion here.

There is an obvious physiological difference between races. This may be caused by evolutionary means. The difficulty is that you then suggest that these differences manifest themselves in such a way as to make one race superior to another. Maybe there is some evidence of this in some cases: you may be able to point to olympic disciplines and a detailed statistical anlysis, discounting other societal factors, to asecertain a physical profile that tends to suit a particular discipline. What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality. Not sure exactly where you stand in this subject: the reason for political correctness is that massive injustices have been suffered in the past as a consequence of this type of reasoning, and we ought to take positive steps to try to reduce the impact of this style of thinking in modern society.

It is possible that humans have evolved to a state where they do not conform with the classic evolutionary requirements: we do not need to adapt to environmental changes, but can change our environment instead (and in any case, evolution is too slow to be recognisable in large, slow reproducing mammals).


Originally posted by theSaj:

[To:The difficulty is that you then suggest that these differences manifest themselves in such a way as to make one race superior to another]No, not superior, but that individuals may exemplify superior aptitude in a limited facet. (ie: some people have higher IQ's while others excel at athletics. But not superior. Equal, but differently talented due to variances in genetic code.) That help to clarify.

Superiority in reference to an individual over another is a dangerous direction.

[To:What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality.]Agreed, and no, I do not think race, religion or nationality are factors. But I think it's inarguable to deny that certain individuals have above average inclinations with apparent genetic influences. For instance, families where there seems to be a genetic inclination to a musical talent. And now the discovery of a gene that seems to indicate heightened intelligence in men. And at the same time there is no denying that there are jocks and nerds (sometimes there are individuals who qualify as both even). But I don't think we can deny there are some genetic tendencies that seem to manifest on a trait for trait level a more gifted or developed state.

[To:What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality.]However, not too imply that a jock or nerd are of superiority to each other as human beings but rather, both are superior in their talents but not in their inherent value.

[To:Not sure exactly where you stand in this subject: the reason for political correctness is that massive injustices have been suffered in the past as a consequence of this type of reasoning]Much agreed, I've often used that fact to stress that it is not so much "religion" as "dogma" that is the problem. There are both religious & scientific individuals who function nobly together and in the world. And there have been atrocities committed by both religious and scientific individuals enforcing dogmatic beliefs. Racial slavery was one such sin. The fact that a pygmy african was put on exhibit in a zoo in order to show superiority and evolution was an atrocius act on the part of mankind. (Dogmatic belief in action.)

[To:It is possible that humans have evolved to a state where they do not conform with the classic evolutionary requirements: we do not need to adapt to environmental changes, but can change our environment instead (and in any case, evolution is too slow to be recognisable in large, slow reproducing mammals).]IMHO, taking the evolutionary precepts, there is no denying that there is varying advancement. However, as you put it is such a slow advancement (and I believe the gene pool so intermingled so as to replicate such). That there is no significant difference. Only what can be called perhaps "talents".

Of course, there is the theory that evolution might occur in waves with drastic leaps. (Then we find ourselves in the realm of the X-men. And even in that regard I lean strongly toward the stance of Professor X. Just because us mutants have evolved further does not mean you non-mutants are not our equals and peers. We merely have developed a talent. The Saj begins to stretch and turn bright colors and get gooey....then in a deep "Tick" styled voice and with a single raised finger.... "Saltwater Taffy Man". Sorry just being humorous and referencing an old RPG character i had from a super-hero game.)

But no, I am much agreed that there is not enough difference to denote any superiority in value. But wish such discoveries, I think we need to address a more open and honest viewpoint. That there are genetic inclinations. (Obese people have been trying to get this recognized for years that even when they eat just measly salads they gain 10x the weight those skinny guys with super metabolisms gain.) *lol*

12/16/2005 01:26:25 PM · #208
This is the first time I think I've been in the rant forum. I read the first page of this thread, which started about Tookie Williams and then the last page that's about evolution and eugenics. Speaking of evolution this thread proves it!

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 13:26:59.
12/16/2005 01:29:45 PM · #209
Originally posted by theSaj:

This seems quite real to me...

"Scientists in North Carolina say they have identified a gene that affects IQ, a finding that, if confirmed, would be a significant step toward understanding the genetic basis for intelligence."

//www.azstarnet.com/news/105238


I did not suggest that it was not. However, without commenting on the highly caveated nature of the quote, you were suggesting that people were individually evolving and that there may be a "smarter branch of the race". This involves a misunderstanding of concepts of evolution (there is genetic diversity, not an evolved "smarter branch" of the race). In the future it may be possible to identify a group of people as having enhanced intelligence - because we may be able to make the enhancements. Suggesting that it already exists in nature is dangerous, as it implies a sense of existing biological superiority. Whereas suggesting it could be an issue for consideration in the future does not.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I mean, of course I'd like more efficient government. And I've stated I want prisoners to work to mitigate their cost to society. Is that what you're referring to?


Thought you said somewhere that one of your reasons for a two year execution conveyor belt was to reduce costs. Could be wrong. Does not invalidate the remainder of the point.
12/16/2005 01:31:04 PM · #210
Originally posted by yanko:

This is the first time I think I've been in the rant forum. I read the first page of this thread, which started about Tookie Williams and then the last page that's about evolution and eugenics. Speaking of evolution this thread proves it!
Surely the link is obvious... Welcome!
12/16/2005 01:44:02 PM · #211
"for a two year execution conveyor belt was to reduce costs"

Yes, under specialized considerations. In which 90% of said death row convictions would probably be eliminated.
12/16/2005 01:49:24 PM · #212
Originally posted by theSaj:

"for a two year execution conveyor belt was to reduce costs"

Yes, under specialized considerations. In which 90% of said death row convictions would probably be eliminated.

Okay: edited version of my point. Do you now see the problem?

You seem to want: a more careful judicial process to prevent innocent people being convicted; to compromise the legal process for potential execution cases to save costs; a faster system because it is too slow; a system under which people are convicted more easily; a system that allows innocent people to be freed promptly; but one that will never let a person free on what you perceive to be a technicality. Now let me think what the problem might be here...

12/16/2005 01:58:47 PM · #213
In My Humble Opinion, litigation costs tend to be the most costly part of much of our system.

Malpractice lawsuits are much of the cost of our medical fees. When a mistake loses your leg, eye, etc. Sure...I believe in large compensation. But when a clamp was left in and had to be removed. And no harm occurred and no permanent loss. And the patient receives millions in punitive damages. That's when I think we have a problem.

When prisoners can sue for a million dollars that there are raisins in their oatmeal (and they're not allergic, they just don't like raisins). Something is wrong with the system.
12/17/2005 02:11:01 PM · #214
Originally posted by theSaj:

In My Humble Opinion, litigation costs tend to be the most costly part of much of our system.

Malpractice lawsuits are much of the cost of our medical fees. When a mistake loses your leg, eye, etc. Sure...I believe in large compensation. But when a clamp was left in and had to be removed. And no harm occurred and no permanent loss. And the patient receives millions in punitive damages. That's when I think we have a problem.

When prisoners can sue for a million dollars that there are raisins in their oatmeal (and they're not allergic, they just don't like raisins). Something is wrong with the system.


You are confusing the civil and criminal systems.

The criminal system is based on predominantly the state prosecuting people for illegal criminal behaviour. People get to plead, and convicts are criminals. The standard of proof for a conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". People can be fined, imprisoned or there are various other types of penalty (in the UK, electronic tagging or community service).

The civil system is based predominantly on determining the position between two individuals with a complaint between them. The case determines liability of one party to the other, usually arising due to one person's unlawful (not "illegal") act. These often arise in contract or tort.

The examples you gave are linked to the civil system: the patient against the doctor, the injured person against the careless etc.

The US civil system in respect of damages often involves a jury and the jury gets to settle the quantum of damages. That scale tends to be very much exaggerated, because juries like giving out punitive damages.

Rather than blindly asserting that litigation costs are the problem (here you confuse "costs" (fees and expenses), with awards (compensation on a malpractice suit)), a reasonable critical analysis might focus on the role of the jury in influencing the developent of punitive damages in the US system and non-reflectove awards. A reasonable conclusion might be to call for the abolition of juries in civil matters, or at least restricting them to determining the facts, not assessing loss and determining awards.

[Incidentally, jury trials are very limited in civil cases in the UK, and the award of compensation is made by the judge and very much associated with actual loss: the level of damages awarded in the US is a source of constant amazement!]
12/17/2005 02:27:07 PM · #215
Simple question with a simple answer

No Clemency

Executions should be public - that's real deterrence.

Videos of executions should be shown to students in every inner city middle and high school. Just like the crash films in drivers ed, the message here is join a gang and this could be you.

12/17/2005 02:34:26 PM · #216
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

a reasonable critical analysis might focus on the role of the jury in influencing the developent of punitive damages in the US system and non-reflectove awards. A reasonable conclusion might be to call for the abolition of juries in civil matters, or at least restricting them to determining the facts, not assessing loss and determining awards.

[Incidentally, jury trials are very limited in civil cases in the UK, and the award of compensation is made by the judge and very much associated with actual loss: the level of damages awarded in the US is a source of constant amazement!]

Problem is, when you get things controlled by these huge megacorporations, a "punitive" award of a few million dollars is chump change, and no real deterrent to corporate mischief.

The famous Ford Pinto case comes to mind, where the Board decided it would be cheaper to pay awards to the families of those injured/killed by their mis-designed gas tanks, rather than effect an inexpensive (something like $7/car) redesign.
12/17/2005 02:35:25 PM · #217
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by theSaj:

In My Humble Opinion, litigation costs tend to be the most costly part of much of our system.

Malpractice lawsuits are much of the cost of our medical fees. When a mistake loses your leg, eye, etc. Sure...I believe in large compensation. But when a clamp was left in and had to be removed. And no harm occurred and no permanent loss. And the patient receives millions in punitive damages. That's when I think we have a problem.

When prisoners can sue for a million dollars that there are raisins in their oatmeal (and they're not allergic, they just don't like raisins). Something is wrong with the system.


You are confusing the civil and criminal systems.

The criminal system is based on predominantly the state prosecuting people for illegal criminal behaviour. People get to plead, and convicts are criminals. The standard of proof for a conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". People can be fined, imprisoned or there are various other types of penalty (in the UK, electronic tagging or community service).

The civil system is based predominantly on determining the position between two individuals with a complaint between them. The case determines liability of one party to the other, usually arising due to one person's unlawful (not "illegal") act. These often arise in contract or tort.

The examples you gave are linked to the civil system: the patient against the doctor, the injured person against the careless etc.

The US civil system in respect of damages often involves a jury and the jury gets to settle the quantum of damages. That scale tends to be very much exaggerated, because juries like giving out punitive damages.

Rather than blindly asserting that litigation costs are the problem (here you confuse "costs" (fees and expenses), with awards (compensation on a malpractice suit)), a reasonable critical analysis might focus on the role of the jury in influencing the developent of punitive damages in the US system and non-reflectove awards. A reasonable conclusion might be to call for the abolition of juries in civil matters, or at least restricting them to determining the facts, not assessing loss and determining awards.

[Incidentally, jury trials are very limited in civil cases in the UK, and the award of compensation is made by the judge and very much associated with actual loss: the level of damages awarded in the US is a source of constant amazement!]


In New Zealand we have a wonderful organisation ( NOT ) called the accident compensation corporation. While the idea was good, it has now been perverted ( once again by lawyers ) to where we have had prisoners trying to escape from jail injure themselves and then getting large sums of money in compensation for their injuries.
Getting back toi the original thread of this topic, I think that people who commit the crime must suffer the consequences, the number of people who reoffend for homocide, is too large to ignore and I think capital punishment is the only real sentence there is for these people. I do think though that there should be a separate category for homocide by way of the old " crime of passion " where life imprisonment is an option
for the sentencing judge. But no such option for cold blooded murder.
These people took a life for their own gain, and should pay the penalty
12/19/2005 09:18:14 AM · #218
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Problem is, when you get things controlled by these huge megacorporations, a "punitive" award of a few million dollars is chump change, and no real deterrent to corporate mischief.

The famous Ford Pinto case comes to mind, where the Board decided it would be cheaper to pay awards to the families of those injured/killed by their mis-designed gas tanks, rather than effect an inexpensive (something like $7/car) redesign.


Agreed that corporate accountability is a difficult subject, but perhaps not fixed by the threat of punitive damages. In my experience the number involved is less important to a large corporation than the publicity and everything is overwhelmed by the threat of criminal sanction. If the board of directors were seriously threatened with imprisonment for criminal acts by their corporations, there would be a sea change. The difficulty there is in trying to make people accountable appropriately in organisations where they devolve power to others.
12/19/2005 09:21:57 AM · #219
Originally posted by photodude:

Simple question with a simple answer

No Clemency

Executions should be public - that's real deterrence.

Videos of executions should be shown to students in every inner city middle and high school. Just like the crash films in drivers ed, the message here is join a gang and this could be you.


And you will live in a society that kills innocent people. Governments that operate this policy are limited, but the Taliban was one, and Saudi is another. These regimes are regarded as repressive and despotic. And you want to bring one of the more objectionable practices of those regimes to the land of the free... good one.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/03/2020 07:12:11 PM

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: 06/03/2020 07:12:11 PM EDT.