Y'all have heard about this one, yes? At the Teabagger debate, Ron Paul was asked about a hypothetical young man who decided not to buy health insurance, wound up in a coma, and needed medical attention. He was asked if he should just be allowed to die, or be treated and, if treated who should pay. The crowd yelled out that he should be allowed to die, and not a single politician said shit. Ron Paul waffled, but, essentially said that individuals should pay for their own health care, or that churches should take up the slack.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/tea-partiers-cheer-to-let-uninsured-die-ron-paul-says-let-churches-help/
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Ron Paul's campaign manager for his 2008 presidential campaign, Kent Snyder, apparently could not obtain medical insurance from his employer (Ron Paul), and, as a result, died owing $400,000 in medical bills...
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13007
Crowds cheering for the deaths of convicts and now crowds cheering for the deaths of the sick... :horrormirth:
WOO! RON PAUL 2012!
In all seriousness, this is both fascinating and repulsive, though completely unsurprising.
Ron Paul strikes me as genuine, but still repulsive.
Kind of like the sad gits who run the tiny libertarian/objectivist party in Norway that gets a hundred something votes in elections. I can imagine him being one of those if he lived here.
That genuineness is a quality (?) that the other Republican candidates lack. I'm not sure what terrifies me most, though: someone who genuinely cheers the deaths of the sick, or someone who cheers the deaths of the sick to gain votes. :lulz:
Quote from: Luna on September 14, 2011, 10:29:38 PM
Y'all have heard about this one, yes? At the Teabagger debate, Ron Paul was asked about a hypothetical young man who decided not to buy health insurance, wound up in a coma, and needed medical attention. He was asked if he should just be allowed to die, or be treated and, if treated who should pay. The crowd yelled out that he should be allowed to die, and not a single politician said shit. Ron Paul waffled, but, essentially said that individuals should pay for their own health care, or that churches should take up the slack.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/09/tea-partiers-cheer-to-let-uninsured-die-ron-paul-says-let-churches-help/
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Ron Paul's campaign manager for his 2008 presidential campaign, Kent Snyder, apparently could not obtain medical insurance from his employer (Ron Paul), and, as a result, died owing $400,000 in medical bills...
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13007
You could have switched "She's a witch." and "Burn her!" with the above Q&A and the mentality would have been no different.
Also, the audience at that thing sounded like DEATH PANELS to me. :lulz:
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on September 15, 2011, 05:59:14 AM
Also, the audience at that thing sounded like DEATH PANELS to me. :lulz:
No, no, no. I am STILL demanding that Obama begin the screenings for Death Panels immediately. I, for one, would gladly do my civic duty and be a member of one such panel. Freelance, of course, as is the American
TM way.
On the one hand, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who had the financial means to pay for health insurance and did not. That is a little different than someone not being able to afford it, or being denied it due to "pre-existing conditions".
On the other hand, my exact reaction to such a person dying would be closer to "needless and easily prevented tragedy" than "fuck yeah, someone's gonna DIE!"
Ron Paul kicked Rick Perry's ass in the California GoP straw poll...
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/ron-paul-wins-california-gop-straw.html
QuoteCongressman Ron Paul (374, 44.9%)
Governor Rick Perry (244, 29.3%)
Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%)
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%)
Jon Huntsman (17, 2.0%)
Herman Cain (15, 1.8%)
Newt Gingrich (14, 1.7%)
Thad McCotter (7, 0.8%)
Rick Santorum (7, 0.8%)
Who the fuck is Thad McCotter?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 18, 2011, 09:57:14 AM
Who the fuck is Thad McCotter?
Michigan Congressman. I had to look him up.
http://politisite.com/2011/06/30/thad-mccotter-2012-presidential-profile-on-the-issues/
The fact that somebody I'd never heard of whupped Santorum amuses the fuck out of me.
QuoteThad McCotter is pro-life.
He has a 100% rating by the Christian Coalition, indicating he is strong on family issues.
He is a strong supporter of the Iraq War initiative.
His votes are strong in favor of government reform.
The NRA gives him an "A", indicating he supports gun rights.
He has a strong military voting record.
He voted in favor of a border fence.
He was the first Republican in the House of Representatives to vote against the Paulson bailout, calling it "American socialism".
He voted against ObamaCare.
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment. (Feb 2009)
Fairly standard GoP platform.
Newt is chiming in... He agrees with Ron Paul that people should pay for the medical care of others, but only if they WANT to contribute.
QuoteGINGRICH: Historically, we had charity. We had places that say, if you are down on your luck, if you failed to be responsible, we will take care of you, but that doesn't mean that you're necessarily going to get a private room, that you're necessarily going to get everything somebody would get who's been prudent and who has taken care of themselves. [...] Yes, we're going to make sure they're taken care of, but they ought to understand that's charity.
BLITZER: But that money should come from charitable organizations, not from taxpayers? Is that what you're saying? [...]
GINGRICH: I would prefer to see it come from charitable organizations.
You know, for a history professor, Gingrinch is amazingly unaware of history. Almost ironically so.
(Hipster GOP?)
Quote from: Cain on September 19, 2011, 02:20:41 PM
You know, for a history professor, Gingrinch is amazingly unaware of history. Almost ironically so.
(Hipster GOP?)
History being rewritten before our eyes. It would be fascinating if it wasn't so fucked up.
Also, time for some basic poli sci:
Most people who donate to charities are the bottom 10-25% of the population, in terms of earners (citations, too numerous to bother with).
Most people in the USA in that demographic are poor savers, as necessitity forces them to survive from paycheck to paycheck.
Most people in that demographic in the USA are facing increased fuel, food and other cost rises, on top of stagnant wages and a deteriorating economic situation (for them).
Basic logic suggests charities would not be able to handle even 1% of the cases the government, through taxation, can.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on September 15, 2011, 05:56:47 AM
You could have switched "She's a witch." and "Burn her!" with the above Q&A and the mentality would have been no different.
heh, you're totally right.
I'm reading this book right now about the history of torture. (Richter's fault that I found it, btw)... one of the points they repeatedly make in the book is that in the history of public executions, it's often not the case that the leaders were these twisted sadistic fucks... it's that the CROWDS demanded the worst possible punishments for lawbreakers.
If a magistrate was seen as being too light on crime, it was very possible for the unruly mob to turn on him. The pillory, the breaking wheel, the ducking stool ... these weren't purely a tool of fear to keep the commoners from rising up. They were used to slake the public's demands for torture and death.
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
People, and I mean mobs, not always individuals, are sick, sadistic fucks.
Watch a pack of second graders torment a nerdy kid, you'll see it. People don't grow out of it.
Western civilization is a monstrous cannibal. It lacks even the humanity of the Aztecs, who at least had the grace to formally ritualize their bloodlust.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on September 15, 2011, 05:56:47 AM
You could have switched "She's a witch." and "Burn her!" with the above Q&A and the mentality would have been no different.
heh, you're totally right.
I'm reading this book right now about the history of torture. (Richter's fault that I found it, btw)... one of the points they repeatedly make in the book is that in the history of public executions, it's often not the case that the leaders were these twisted sadistic fucks... it's that the CROWDS demanded the worst possible punishments for lawbreakers.
If a magistrate was seen as being too light on crime, it was very possible for the unruly mob to turn on him. The pillory, the breaking wheel, the ducking stool ... these weren't purely a tool of fear to keep the commoners from rising up. They were used to slake the public's demands for torture and death.
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
Please to be sharing, Cram, the name/author of this book?
The Big Book of Pain: Torture & Punishment Through History
by Mark P. Donnelly, Daniel Diehl
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Book-Pain-Torture-Punishment/dp/0752459473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316460826&sr=8-1
Richter actually knows the author.
It's 100% nightmare fuel. You read this book for the same reason you go see a horror movie. It's like the necronomicon of my coffee table... everybody that picks it up reels back in horror.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 08:35:21 PM
The Big Book of Pain: Torture & Punishment Through History
by Mark P. Donnelly, Daniel Diehl
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Book-Pain-Torture-Punishment/dp/0752459473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316460826&sr=8-1
Richter actually knows the author.
It's 100% nightmare fuel. You read this book for the same reason you go see a horror movie. It's like the necronomicon of my coffee table... everybody that picks it up reels back in horror.
TY TY. I read the
Stiff book for the same reason.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 08:35:21 PM
The Big Book of Pain: Torture & Punishment Through History
by Mark P. Donnelly, Daniel Diehl
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Book-Pain-Torture-Punishment/dp/0752459473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316460826&sr=8-1
Richter actually knows the author.
It's 100% nightmare fuel. You read this book for the same reason you go see a horror movie. It's like the necronomicon of my coffee table... everybody that picks it up reels back in horror.
I've got a slew of pictures of the guy up on my FB page, he gave a talk on the History of the Sword at the Steampunk World's Faire that was absolutely fascinating. He had an actual period, historical rapier there that he showed us... He grounded the tip on the pavement and BENT it to show that the flex was still good, I think they heard Richter and I both shit ourselves five rows back.
Quote from: Cain on September 15, 2011, 09:02:33 AM
On the one hand, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who had the financial means to pay for health insurance and did not. That is a little different than someone not being able to afford it, or being denied it due to "pre-existing conditions".
On the other hand, my exact reaction to such a person dying would be closer to "needless and easily prevented tragedy" than "fuck yeah, someone's gonna DIE!"
I think the proctor did a piss poor job and the question should have been asked differently.
Obviously, if you could have afforded and was offered insurance through your employer and denied it, well, imo, that's your own fucking fault. But what SHOULD have been asked was a struggling single parent who's working 2 full time jobs at a retail establishment that doesn't offer healthcare. You gotta yank the heartstrings correctly.
...I still don't like Ron Paul, but I think that he got confused on that one. The crowd, on the other hand, has no fucking excuse for their behavior.
Quote from: Suu on September 21, 2011, 10:32:21 PM
...I still don't like Ron Paul, but I think that he got confused on that one. The crowd, on the other hand, has no fucking excuse for their behavior.
However, despite the fact that this shit made headlines, I've not seen anything from Ron Paul's office saying SHIT about the people in the crowd cheering the (hypothetical) death.
Quote from: Luna on September 21, 2011, 10:52:52 PM
Quote from: Suu on September 21, 2011, 10:32:21 PM
...I still don't like Ron Paul, but I think that he got confused on that one. The crowd, on the other hand, has no fucking excuse for their behavior.
However, despite the fact that this shit made headlines, I've not seen anything from Ron Paul's office saying SHIT about the people in the crowd cheering the (hypothetical) death.
And that is a deliberate statement.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
I'm cheering for the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer, one of the three white supremists who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death.
:banana: <- That's me.
I just wish it was done with one of those old-fangled nasty contraptions rather than lethal injection.
Quote from: Suu on September 21, 2011, 10:32:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 15, 2011, 09:02:33 AM
On the one hand, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who had the financial means to pay for health insurance and did not. That is a little different than someone not being able to afford it, or being denied it due to "pre-existing conditions".
On the other hand, my exact reaction to such a person dying would be closer to "needless and easily prevented tragedy" than "fuck yeah, someone's gonna DIE!"
I think the proctor did a piss poor job and the question should have been asked differently.
Obviously, if you could have afforded and was offered insurance through your employer and denied it, well, imo, that's your own fucking fault. But what SHOULD have been asked was a struggling single parent who's working 2 full time jobs at a retail establishment that doesn't offer healthcare. You gotta yank the heartstrings correctly.
...I still don't like Ron Paul, but I think that he got confused on that one. The crowd, on the other hand, has no fucking excuse for their behavior.
I don't think he was confused at all. I think he meant exactly what he said.
Ron Paul is an evil old racist bastard of a constitution-fucker that should be strapped across a cannon.
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 10:55:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
I'm cheering for the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer, one of the three white supremists who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death.
:banana: <- That's me.
I just wish it was done with one of those old-fangled nasty contraptions rather than lethal injection.
Yes, emotionally-driven things like this are the best way to run a nation.
And its between him, Huntsman and Romney as to which Republican has most regular contact with reality.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2011, 10:57:37 PM
And its between him, Huntsman and Romney as to which Republican has most regular contact with reality.
I'm gonna say Romney.
Who is also LEAST likely to get the nomination. Because our Overton Window is now centered on "Barking Fucking Mad".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 10:55:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
I'm cheering for the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer, one of the three white supremists who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death.
:banana: <- That's me.
I just wish it was done with one of those old-fangled nasty contraptions rather than lethal injection.
Yes, emotionally-driven things like this are the best way to run a nation.
In the case of murderous racists, it is quite appropriate.
White supremacists are lethal and extremely well organized in prisons, moreso than they are on the outside.
There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.
I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.
Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 10:55:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
I'm cheering for the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer, one of the three white supremists who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death.
:banana: <- That's me.
I just wish it was done with one of those old-fangled nasty contraptions rather than lethal injection.
Yes, emotionally-driven things like this are the best way to run a nation.
In the case of murderous racists, it is quite appropriate.
White supremacists are lethal and extremely well organized in prisons, moreso than they are on the outside.
Sure. And it's okay if you occasionally kill the wrong guy, because your outrage will let you sleep at night.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 21, 2011, 11:19:37 PM
There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.
I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.
Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.
You're not supposed to THINK your way through these things. You are supposed to BAY FOR BLOOD, or you're a criminal coddling commie.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 10:55:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
I'm cheering for the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer, one of the three white supremists who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death.
:banana: <- That's me.
I just wish it was done with one of those old-fangled nasty contraptions rather than lethal injection.
Yes, emotionally-driven things like this are the best way to run a nation.
In the case of murderous racists, it is quite appropriate.
White supremacists are lethal and extremely well organized in prisons, moreso than they are on the outside.
Sure. And it's okay if you occasionally kill the wrong guy, because your outrage will let you sleep at night.
Hey, it's CONSTITUTIONAL to kill the wrong guy, once in awhile, didn't ya know?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/20/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-says-executing-an-innocent-man-is-not-unconstitutional/
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: Net on September 21, 2011, 10:55:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
So having read that, I get quite a chill watching all these people cheering for the death penalty...
I'm cheering for the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer, one of the three white supremists who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death.
:banana: <- That's me.
I just wish it was done with one of those old-fangled nasty contraptions rather than lethal injection.
Yes, emotionally-driven things like this are the best way to run a nation.
In the case of murderous racists, it is quite appropriate.
White supremacists are lethal and extremely well organized in prisons, moreso than they are on the outside.
Sure. And it's okay if you occasionally kill the wrong guy, because your outrage will let you sleep at night.
Better to lock them up so they can kill more people in prison, eh?
Yes, actually. Unless you are arguing that the state has a moral duty to kill people preemptively.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 21, 2011, 11:42:39 PM
Yes, actually. Unless you are arguing that the state has a moral duty to kill people preemptively.
In the case of white supremacists in for tortuous murders, I wouldn't call that preemptive. I believe the word you're looking for is justice.
They already murdered someone and are far more likely to keep murdering people in prison than most other murder convicts.
And in similar cases, the state does have a moral duty to kill people preemptively. Police snipers don't need to wait for an armed gunman to kill hostages before they kill the fuck. You don't need to wait for someone invading your home at night to attack you before you cap his ass.
You aren't the state.
And taking out someone who is holding a gun to someone's head and threatening to kill them in that moment is VERY different from saying that someone should be executed rather than imprisoned because they MIGHT kill someone in prison.
And I fail to see what someone being a white supremacist has to do with any of it. You seem to be arguing that the state should administer the death penalty with emotions in mind rather than reason.
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
I apply the same logic to serial killers. There's no reason to think they won't continue killing people in prison. You can't keep them in solitary forever. And even in maximum security prisons they manage to kill other inmates.
If white supremacists did not have extremely powerful and well connected networks in prison it would be a different story. But the fact of the matter is they do, and they are better organized and more able to carry out murders in prison than any other group. I will dig up the evidence if I have to.
For those with shorter attention spans, watch the National Geographic special:
Aryan Brotherhood. Here's their blurb about the video:
Quote
The Aryan Brotherhood are the most violent criminals behind bars. Their reach extends far beyond the cells of maximum security where they run a highly organised trafficking enterprise.
In the maximum-security prison world of murderers and rapists, they are the most feared. With nicknames like "The Beast" and "The Hulk", the warriors of The Aryan Brotherhood are the most violent criminals behind bars, men who strangle with their bare hands, shank guards, gouge out their enemies eyes at the slightest sign of disrespect. Forged in prison out of race wars against black gangs, prison officials tried to scatter the Brotherhood across the country but that only spreads their power nationwide. Today, their reach extends far beyond the windowless cells of maximum security from which they run a highly organized trafficking enterprise dealing in crystal meth, prostitution, intimidation and murder. We delve behind the bars to unveil the secrets of the vicious gang of white supremacists that has gained a stranglehold over the nations prisons.
On the surface of this, I can see how it appears to be an emotional argument, but it's not. Yes, everyone hates racists, but there's a lot more to it than that. The reality is that white supremacists have an incredible amount of power in prison and all too often they use it to murder other inmates. An avowed white supremacist in prison for murder has more in common with a serial killer and should be executed for the same reasons. Plus, they have the support of a pervasive network to help them do so.
ECH is absolutely correct here.
While it is a sadly necessary measure to preemptively kill some people who are an imminent and serious threat to the lives of innocent hostages, a tried and convicted criminal has been captured and is presumably, not currently a threat to anyone's well-being. The problem is the penal system in the U.S. is not designed to reform criminals and reintegrate them into society, but rather to punish them for daring to transgress. Visit the nearest federal prison and tell me that their goal is rehabilitation; I live a scant 20 some odd miles from the former supermax prison that they built to replace Alcatraz. It's since been downgraded to medium security, I believe. Regardless, it's not what one would associate with reforming those within it's walls, as I seem to recall that it is/was on permanent lockdown for nearly three decades (actually in relation to some violence related to the Aryan Brotherhood, I believe).
But that's besides the point. My point of view is that the emphasis should be on making these people (because, hey, they are people), and helping them change their ways, if this is not possible, well, then they should be isolated, but still treated like human beings. And there should never be a point at which "kill this person" is an acceptable form of correction.
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
I apply the same logic to serial killers. There's no reason to think they won't continue killing people in prison. You can't keep them in solitary forever. And even in maximum security prisons they manage to kill other inmates.
If white supremacists did not have extremely powerful and well connected networks in prison it would be a different story. But the fact of the matter is they do, and they are better organized and more able to carry out murders in prison than any other group. I will dig up the evidence if I have to.
For those with shorter attention spans, watch the National Geographic special: Aryan Brotherhood. Here's their blurb about the video:
Quote
The Aryan Brotherhood are the most violent criminals behind bars. Their reach extends far beyond the cells of maximum security where they run a highly organised trafficking enterprise.
In the maximum-security prison world of murderers and rapists, they are the most feared. With nicknames like "The Beast" and "The Hulk", the warriors of The Aryan Brotherhood are the most violent criminals behind bars, men who strangle with their bare hands, shank guards, gouge out their enemies eyes at the slightest sign of disrespect. Forged in prison out of race wars against black gangs, prison officials tried to scatter the Brotherhood across the country but that only spreads their power nationwide. Today, their reach extends far beyond the windowless cells of maximum security from which they run a highly organized trafficking enterprise dealing in crystal meth, prostitution, intimidation and murder. We delve behind the bars to unveil the secrets of the vicious gang of white supremacists that has gained a stranglehold over the nations prisons.
On the surface of this, I can see how it appears to be an emotional argument, but it's not. Yes, everyone hates racists, but there's a lot more to it than that. The reality is that white supremacists have an incredible amount of power in prison and all too often they use it to murder other inmates. An avowed white supremacist in prison for murder has more in common with a serial killer and should be executed for the same reasons. Plus, they have the support of a pervasive network to help them do so.
Again, this is a problem with the system. The Aryan Brotherhood is a reprehensible organization, yes. But execution should NEVER be on the table. Ever see
American History X? It's a good reminder that even people who do murder people (for these very reasons)
can change, because they
are still fucking people.
Maybe I'm still too optimistic, here. But whatever. I'd rather be optimistic and genuinely try to help people (even reprehensible people, who do reprehensible things) in the hope that they will recognize the error of their ways, than wind up killing people who are either repentant or, worse, actually innocent of the crime for which they've been accused and convicted.
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Bingo.
Hell, let's even flip this around:
"1. You belong to a certain group (Racists/serial killers/Aryan Brotherhood).
2. You may or may not have committed certain acts I find wrong (Murder).
3. You deserve to be put to death for this."
This is the logic you are applying right now.
Substitute "Blacks/Jews/homosexuals/construction workers/whatever" for 1. and "Rape/theft/religious crimes/whatever" for 2. and you have.... well, a goddamn indefensible position.
You're just passing the buck to other inmates, who DO get permanently disabled or murdered. So, to prevent the murder of innocent people by the state, you enable the assault and murder of more inmates --- who also could be innocent.
The Aryan Brotherhood sure is easier to control and hold accountable than the state, right? And how, pray-tell, do you "properly administer prisons" to prevent them from doing what they do, day in and day out?
You can be as optimistic as you want about reforming people and reforming the prison system, meanwhile white supremacists will continue to rape, disable and murder IN prisons at a prolific rate.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.
The Aryan Brotherhood is bad, so they should be tortured and killed without regard for capacity to reform, the reasoning behind why they are able to continue killing in prisons, or anything else that should be taken into account.
Right, got it.
the guy admitted he was involved in removing another human being from the planet. It didn't require anyone providing a burden of proof, it was supplied by his own words.
I struggle with this a lot because I'm with ECH, giving "The State" the power to execute is a bad idea, but the alternative is blood feuds and vigilante justice with absolutely no accountability, where wrongful death or execution can be sought when evidence is presented that dismisses the charge post execution.
At the least, the family can have some measure of absolution. It isn't much, granted.
As to housing these people we KNOW are guilty but would not put to death (in that ideal world) they pose a threat because they become part of the prison society. The one that teaches new comers and the barely initiated how to fuck other people over, how to do it in a good and proper manner, and how to avoid being caught doing it.
Unless you're talking about funding to keep these people permanently in solitary (which I am assuming you are on humanitarian grounds.. feel free to correct me) this is not an ideal way to handle, IMO, the people who take life from another person and their family.
On this, more than anything maybe, I really am torn.
I hear your, DP.
it's a tough nut, and i don't think there really is a satisfactory answer.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 02:48:37 AM
The Aryan Brotherhood is bad, so they should be tortured and killed without regard for capacity to reform, the reasoning behind why they are able to continue killing in prisons, or anything else that should be taken into account.
Right, got it.
Of all the people susceptible to reform I just think of remorseless Aryan Brotherhood murder convicts
first! And this nebulous "prison reform" that prevents prisoners from disabling and killing each other sounds
real promising. Tell me more!
Finally, the Aryan Brotherhood can be held accountable for their actions to a greater degree than the government. They're obviously more transparent with all their careful record keeping and public hearings before their judicious neck shankings.
Right, got it.
Just as a note, it was my understanding that the modern prison system began as an experiment in reforming the criminally minded and inducing penitence (hence the name penitentiary), but it never really worked as hoped. So now we've got this massive prison system that doesn't really correct any problems, costs a fortune, and now is a big business problem to boot...
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 02:59:39 AM
the guy admitted he was involved in removing another human being from the planet. It didn't require anyone providing a burden of proof, it was supplied by his own words.
I struggle with this a lot because I'm with ECH, giving "The State" the power to execute is a bad idea, but the alternative is blood feuds and vigilante justice with absolutely no accountability, where wrongful death or execution can be sought when evidence is presented that dismisses the charge post execution.
At the least, the family can have some measure of absolution. It isn't much, granted.
As to housing these people we KNOW are guilty but would not put to death (in that ideal world) they pose a threat because they become part of the prison society. The one that teaches new comers and the barely initiated how to fuck other people over, how to do it in a good and proper manner, and how to avoid being caught doing it.
Unless you're talking about funding to keep these people permanently in solitary (which I am assuming you are not on humanitarian grounds.. feel free to correct me) this is not an ideal way to handle, IMO, the people who take life from another person and their family.
On this, more than anything maybe, I really am torn.
Yeah, it's by no means an easy issue. But ultimately, it's impossible to justify simply killing a person rather than attempting, at least, to give them whatever it is they need to amend their behavior (psychological treatment, workforce education, etc.) Not saying that everyone would reform, but I just don't see any argument that justifies killing someone without even giving them that chance.
And in this ideal system, the "prison society" wouldn't be an issue, because they would never be reintegrated into society (hey, if they had their chance and went and killed more people or whatever, then they can live with the other murders and rapists and what not. If they kill each other off, well, maybe that's a form of execution, but at that point I'm satisfied that they've been given their chance to change. And there's still a chance that they'll be able to live their lives out in relative peace. As for constant solitary, meh, only for those who simply refuse to live even in "prison society" without being violent fucks. Still no active executions, though.)
Of course, the implementation of a system that meets my standards will never happen, but hey, I'd rather err on the side of not killing innocent/repentant people and just not kill people.
In regards to absolution of the families of victims, fuck them. People close to the crime are not to be trusted in matters of what would constitute a just outcome, so whether or not they feel "absolved" is not the concern of the "justice" system.
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 03:31:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 02:48:37 AM
The Aryan Brotherhood is bad, so they should be tortured and killed without regard for capacity to reform, the reasoning behind why they are able to continue killing in prisons, or anything else that should be taken into account.
Right, got it.
Of all the people susceptible to reform I just think of remorseless Aryan Brotherhood murder convicts first!
And this nebulous "prison reform" that prevents prisoners from disabling and killing each other sounds real promising. Tell me more!
Finally, the Aryan Brotherhood can be held accountable for their actions to a greater degree than the government. They're obviously more transparent with all their careful record keeping and public hearings before their judicious neck shankings.
Right, got it.
One last time: You. Are. The Same. As. Them.
In a hypothetical situation, where a member of the Aryan Brotherhood kills a black man, you are saying that he should be executed. Well, okay, a life for a life. said black man was a multiple murderer and rapist, and had never even been so much as suspected by the police, but this member of the Aryan Brotherhood had actually been victimized by this very man (let's say this man killed his father and raped his sister twice before hitting her with a tire iron and leaving her dying in a ditch). In this situation, this man joined the Aryan Brotherhood solely because of these crimes. Now, he is NOT "innocent" in any sense of the word, and he sure as hell didn't show good judgment, but I'll be honest. Were I in his shoes, I'd very well want to kill the motherfucker who did it, too. Thing is: I'M NOT FIT TO MAKE THAT DECISION AT THAT POINT.
So, this guy is chilling in prison for 5, 10, 20 years. Whatever. While he's in, he finds out. He killed the wrong guy. Oops. He is genuinely repentant, and wants to quit the Brotherhood, and wants to do something positive with his life to make up for it.
For the entire time, his victims' family is calling for his execution.
Here's where it gets sticky: Guy is no longer a threat (completely. He is not just saying he regrets it to get out). You are saying that he should be executed.
No. You are in the wrong.
See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 03:38:39 AM
Just as a note, it was my understanding that the modern prison system began as an experiment in reforming the criminally minded and inducing penitence (hence the name penitentiary), but it never really worked as hoped. So now we've got this massive prison system that doesn't really correct any problems, costs a fortune, and now is a big business problem to boot...
That is my understanding as well. System's fucked something fierce.
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 02:32:14 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.
That's because I only intended to address the two points that most of your position seems to stem from. Points which are, in fact, not only not supported by logic but completely refuted by it. But if we're playing THAT game, you failed to substantively address ANY of my refutations of your points.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 03:38:39 AM
Just as a note, it was my understanding that the modern prison system began as an experiment in reforming the criminally minded and inducing penitence (hence the name penitentiary), but it never really worked as hoped. So now we've got this massive prison system that doesn't really correct any problems, costs a fortune, and now is a big business problem to boot...
The Supreme Court has flat out said that Prison serves as punishment/threat of punishment, and not anything approaching "reform".
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/16/opinion/la-ed-rehab-20110416
QuoteBut Tapia's lawyer cites language in federal law saying that "imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation." The only approved objectives of imprisonment are deterrence, incapacitation and retribution.
The lawyer defending the enhanced sentence acknowledged that Congress has rejected the "rehabilitative ideal, the amorphous hope of reforming every convicted criminal's soul through isolation and prison routine."
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:13:03 AM
See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.
It's not a "risk". People who do not deserve to die get killed in prison by these people on the regular.
You're just passing the buck.
More people who do not deserve to die get killed by other inmates rather than the state --- the AB is responsible for a disproportionate number of them. And that doesn't even take into account how many people they permanently disable who also did not deserve it.
So you'd prefer to allow an AB murder convict kill and maim more people because they might come around some day and apologize for their boo-boos? How moral of you.
Idealism has no place in this conversation and no matter how many times you say I'm wrong it's not going to change the fact that the AB are prolific in-prison killers. Allowing them to continue killing people by not executing them causes more loss of life and removes the potential for the people they killed to redeem themselves from their often lesser crimes.
But somehow those people don't count. Prison reform magic will fix that, right?
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 04:50:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:13:03 AM
See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.
It's not a "risk". People who do not deserve to die get killed in prison by these people on the regular.
You're just passing the buck.
More people who do not deserve to die get killed by other inmates rather than the state --- the AB is responsible for a disproportionate number of them. And that doesn't even take into account how many people they permanently disable who also did not deserve it.
So you'd prefer to allow an AB murder convict kill and maim more people because they might come around some day and apologize for their boo-boos? How moral of you.
Idealism has no place in this conversation and no matter how many times you say I'm wrong it's not going to change the fact that the AB are prolific in-prison killers. Allowing them to continue killing people by not executing them causes more loss of life and removes the potential for the people they killed to redeem themselves from their often lesser crimes.
But somehow those people don't count. Prison reform magic will fix that, right?
Well, I tried. Your reasoning is still flawed. You are still as bad as the AB. :wave:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 04:21:42 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 02:32:14 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.
That's because I only intended to address the two points that most of your position seems to stem from. Points which are, in fact, not only not supported by logic but completely refuted by it. But if we're playing THAT game, you failed to substantively address ANY of my refutations of your points.
Focusing on only part of my argument is fallacious.
If you want to play the take-it-out-of-context game we can do that as well. The pervasive influence of the AB in US prisons is that crucial context.
It's only reasonable to execute someone when they show no signs of changing their murderous behavior and are enabled by the most powerful organized group of inmates in the system. The system hasn't been able to reign them in, even in maximum security prisons.
Allowing them to kill more people in prison is not morally defensible. Currently, there is no feasible way to prevent them from killing and maiming more people besides executing them.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:59:09 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 04:50:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:13:03 AM
See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.
It's not a "risk". People who do not deserve to die get killed in prison by these people on the regular.
You're just passing the buck.
More people who do not deserve to die get killed by other inmates rather than the state --- the AB is responsible for a disproportionate number of them. And that doesn't even take into account how many people they permanently disable who also did not deserve it.
So you'd prefer to allow an AB murder convict kill and maim more people because they might come around some day and apologize for their boo-boos? How moral of you.
Idealism has no place in this conversation and no matter how many times you say I'm wrong it's not going to change the fact that the AB are prolific in-prison killers. Allowing them to continue killing people by not executing them causes more loss of life and removes the potential for the people they killed to redeem themselves from their often lesser crimes.
But somehow those people don't count. Prison reform magic will fix that, right?
Well, I tried. Your reasoning is still flawed. You are still as bad as the AB. :wave:
Merely stating "your reasoning is flawed" doesn't prove shit.
And I don't give a fuck about being told I'm as bad as the AB.
Nothing like an ad hominem to really show you won the debate, eh?
And how does killing them do anything that indefinite solitary confinement doesn't also do?
Much more cheaply, I might add, and with the chance of reversal if the state, in fact, was wrong.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 21, 2011, 11:19:37 PM
There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.
I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.
Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.
I disagree that vigilante justice is preferable to state executions. Both kill innocent people, but vigilante justice has no appeals process. Innocent death row inmates occasionally get lucky and have their convictions overturned.
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 05:04:08 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 04:21:42 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 02:32:14 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.
That's because I only intended to address the two points that most of your position seems to stem from. Points which are, in fact, not only not supported by logic but completely refuted by it. But if we're playing THAT game, you failed to substantively address ANY of my refutations of your points.
Focusing on only part of my argument is fallacious.
If you want to play the take-it-out-of-context game we can do that as well. The pervasive influence of the AB in US prisons is that crucial context.
It's only reasonable to execute someone when they show no signs of changing their murderous behavior and are enabled by the most powerful organized group of inmates in the system. The system hasn't been able to reign them in, even in maximum security prisons.
Allowing them to kill more people in prison is not morally defensible. Currently, there is no feasible way to prevent them from killing and maiming more people besides executing them.
Substitute "Black Gangster Disciples" or "Texas Syndicate" for "Aryan Brotherhood" and suddenly your argument sounds a little different, no?
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 22, 2011, 12:21:39 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 21, 2011, 11:19:37 PM
There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.
I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.
Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.
I disagree that vigilante justice is preferable to state executions. Both kill innocent people, but vigilante justice has no appeals process. Innocent death row inmates occasionally get lucky and have their convictions overturned.
Beside the point. Other random citizens are not a nation-state tasked, in theory, with protecting their citizens' rights and well-being (including even the most depraved and incorrigible amongst them).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2011, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2011, 10:57:37 PM
And its between him, Huntsman and Romney as to which Republican has most regular contact with reality.
I'm gonna say Romney.
Who is also LEAST likely to get the nomination. Because our Overton Window is now centered on "Barking Fucking Mad".
Hard to call. I mean, Romney does wear the magic underpants, which is even more ridiculous than libertarianism. Huntsman was the Ambassador to China, and State tend not to send people with loose screws to nuclear-armed countries (barring John Bolton), but has some fairly wacky social views. Ron Paul impressed me when he correctly pointed out how a silver dime would pay for a gallon of gas (mainly as I'm so used to Republicans getting their maths utterly wrong), but that is partly the soft bigotry of low expectations coming into play. And of course there are all the other things wrong with Paul which negate his show of basic mathematical skills...
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on September 22, 2011, 12:21:39 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 21, 2011, 11:19:37 PM
There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.
I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.
Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.
I disagree that vigilante justice is preferable to state executions. Both kill innocent people, but vigilante justice has no appeals process. Innocent death row inmates occasionally get lucky and have their convictions overturned.
Beside the point. Other random citizens are not a nation-state tasked, in theory, with protecting their citizens' rights and well-being (including even the most depraved and incorrigible amongst them).
Except in Switzerland. But the Swiss are odd like that.
I don't get this, Net. Obviously the U.S. prison system is a colossal mess, but is executing the demographic most likely to kill other inmates, who may not deserve it, truly the first thing you think of when you want to make that mess less awful? How about imprisoning less near-innocent people (like the masses in for possession) so if some racist asshat kills someone it's less of a loss for society? How about improving living conditions, facilities, and staffing to make it less likely that any prisoner kills anyone?
Sure, these are difficult and expensive things to do, but they also happen to save you some human lives, including innocent ones, which are surely pretty valuable in themselves. Not to mention the mountains of money you could save by imprisoning less people, allowing them to lead relatively productive lives and pay taxes to cover the costs of making prisons less awful places.
Killing people should be the last resort, no matter what – even when it comes to preventing murder.
Hey it turns out we're can't stop you from killing people while you're in here, so we're just going to lethally inject you. That should save some lives.
\
(http://media.bakersfieldnow.com/images/090217_california_prison_guard_file.jpg)
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 01:52:32 AM
ECH is absolutely correct here.
While it is a sadly necessary measure to preemptively kill some people who are an imminent and serious threat to the lives of innocent hostages, a tried and convicted criminal has been captured and is presumably, not currently a threat to anyone's well-being. The problem is the penal system in the U.S. is not designed to reform criminals and reintegrate them into society, but rather to punish them for daring to transgress. Visit the nearest federal prison and tell me that their goal is rehabilitation; I live a scant 20 some odd miles from the former supermax prison that they built to replace Alcatraz. It's since been downgraded to medium security, I believe. Regardless, it's not what one would associate with reforming those within it's walls, as I seem to recall that it is/was on permanent lockdown for nearly three decades (actually in relation to some violence related to the Aryan Brotherhood, I believe).
But that's besides the point. My point of view is that the emphasis should be on making these people (because, hey, they are people), and helping them change their ways, if this is not possible, well, then they should be isolated, but still treated like human beings. And there should never be a point at which "kill this person" is an acceptable form of correction.
If we are going to focus on punishment it would really be better to stop pretending to rehabilitate and go back to beatings. Those at least don't concentrate criminals and create things like the Aryan Brotherhood.
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 05:04:08 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 04:21:42 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 02:32:14 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 22, 2011, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Net on September 22, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
The purpose of executing them is two-fold:
1. As a punishment for murder.
2. So they can't kill anyone else.
Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.
Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.
That's because I only intended to address the two points that most of your position seems to stem from. Points which are, in fact, not only not supported by logic but completely refuted by it. But if we're playing THAT game, you failed to substantively address ANY of my refutations of your points.
Focusing on only part of my argument is fallacious.
If you want to play the take-it-out-of-context game we can do that as well. The pervasive influence of the AB in US prisons is that crucial context.
It's only reasonable to execute someone when they show no signs of changing their murderous behavior and are enabled by the most powerful organized group of inmates in the system. The system hasn't been able to reign them in, even in maximum security prisons.
Allowing them to kill more people in prison is not morally defensible. Currently, there is no feasible way to prevent them from killing and maiming more people besides executing them.
Sure there is. Put AB members in one prison, put other people in a different one.
And for some reason, no non-AB gangs will fill the vacuum?
That sounds.... naiive. At best.
Good interview with Ron Paul here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/397964/playlist_tds_extended_ron_paul/397934
Jon Stewart's agenda is interesting.
Stewart disagrees with Ron Paul that market forces are trustworthy. And he thinks that some of Paul's ideas are downright dangerous (like legalizing heroin).
But he also wants Ron Paul to look like a legitimate candidate. Stewart occasionally seems frustrated that Ron Paul doesn't get media attention proportional to his popularity. Is it because Ron Paul could always be the republican's version of Ralph Nader?
Stewart gives him a fair shake. It's a very respectful and articulate interview, even where they disagree.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 28, 2011, 08:20:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 01:52:32 AM
ECH is absolutely correct here.
While it is a sadly necessary measure to preemptively kill some people who are an imminent and serious threat to the lives of innocent hostages, a tried and convicted criminal has been captured and is presumably, not currently a threat to anyone's well-being. The problem is the penal system in the U.S. is not designed to reform criminals and reintegrate them into society, but rather to punish them for daring to transgress. Visit the nearest federal prison and tell me that their goal is rehabilitation; I live a scant 20 some odd miles from the former supermax prison that they built to replace Alcatraz. It's since been downgraded to medium security, I believe. Regardless, it's not what one would associate with reforming those within it's walls, as I seem to recall that it is/was on permanent lockdown for nearly three decades (actually in relation to some violence related to the Aryan Brotherhood, I believe).
But that's besides the point. My point of view is that the emphasis should be on making these people (because, hey, they are people), and helping them change their ways, if this is not possible, well, then they should be isolated, but still treated like human beings. And there should never be a point at which "kill this person" is an acceptable form of correction.
If we are going to focus on punishment it would really be better to stop pretending to rehabilitate and go back to beatings. Those at least don't concentrate criminals and create things like the Aryan Brotherhood.
Right. I think we should start with you.