EBSB52

I agree with you for the most part, but for this to drift from a local issue to a global issue is off point. I don't think other countries owe us for fighting wars, even if the result is that we do save their bacon. The reason the US is involved in wars is because we like to. So I dismiss any myrterdom here. As for the right and ability of the citizens of a country to own firearms in a generally unencombered fashion; I'm all for it. The reason some people from other countries adopt an anti-gun ownership mentality is becuase they cannot own them. I say that in a very respectful manner, but I believe it to be true. I want to get out of the US and move to Europe in the next few years, and if I do I will make that sacracfice. "Break in to my house and you will leave in a body bag." And if it's the middle of the day and you catch a theif on the way out of the house and shoot him in the back as he tries to escape, you will be leaving in handcuffs most likely. So discretion needs to be used here.

Right, it's incapacitation either way, but errors can be reversed one way. The conservative argument is that these guys can get out again. well, if they do then they've proven themselves innocent from behind bars, so we want innocent people getting out. Or is it that the conservatives feel good when SOMEONE, ANYONE dies because a person was murdered? I think there is a large portion of 'Salemesque' thinking in most hardened conservative's minds.

I do not believe that what you state, is the argument. Gun laws jail criminals here in the US too. However, laws that remove guns from the law abiding public, and worthless bans, do not. (I feel your post is misleading.....) If I misunderstood forgive me please. And you make the assumption that those arrested criminals would have used their guns in a crime. Furthermore, assuming that guns legally owned are never used in crimes is a fallacy too.

Does your acquiescence indicate that you avoided this post, or did you just not get to it yet? "No you didn't, and you still didn't in this post. Why avoid writing: "Yes, they should kill kids for committing 1st degree murder." You give some watered-down version of it as you did in this post. I don't blame you; it's hard to write. They? Why not write it in a way that says that kids should be killed by the state when they commit 1st degree murder? Actually I find it to be a paradox rather than a dichotomy. Not trying to start a grammar war here, but it seems like a paradox that goes both ways. I've thought this for years. Liberals: pro-abortion rights anti-cap pun Conservatives: anti-abortion rights pro-cap pun See, it works both ways. What I can argue in behalf of the liberals is that a person of at least 16 IS a person, not a fetus. The argument of when life begins is still subjective and unsettled. As for killing kids, are you saying that you think it's ok that the policies of the US parallel these countries: Communist China Iran Congo Nigeria Pakistan Saudi Arabia Yemen Care to go address some of the writings on whether deterrence is achieved thru cap pun as I posted above? So, are you going to explicitly state that kids should be killed if they are convicted of 1st degree murder, or are you going to keep dodging the question?

"Does the threat of capital punishment act as a deterrent to ALL criminals? Obviously not. Does it act as a general deterrent? I believe that it does and you obviously believe that it doesn't." I think you're not understanding the context of the term, "general deterrent." General deterrence - if Bob is punished and people look on, they will be less likely to commit the same crime for fear of being punished like Bob. Specific (special) deterrence - if Bob is punished, Bob will be less likely to commit that crime or other crimes for fear of the same punishment again. So with that, a person would need to empirically establish what the crime rate does in relationship to the punishment rate. Right now the murder rate is still increasing (had been for at least 3 years), so I don't think general deterrence is working in regard to murder and the death penalty. Do you really think that a potential first-degree murderer thinks that the margin between life w/o parole and death penalty is so egregious that they decide not to kill? If so, you are on an island. You can be, but to expect others to be convicted of that as sound logic, well, you are again on an island. In the above quote you refer to what you believe and I believe. I would never try to revoke anyone's right to opinion, but to assert, "I feel ..." is kind of fluffy. Great, you have an opinion, but that doesn't address the statistical or supportive notions that lend reason to these opinions. Why not address substantive issues and supporting information like the intellectual approach to deterrence as I wrote above? "A lot of people are bent out of shape over capital punishment laws - rightfully so, in their opinions - other people's opinions are different, obviously." Bent out of shape is a strange way to address innocent people being killed by America. Opinions, opinions, bla, bla, bla ....... Ok, get to the substance, please. "All I can say to that, is this: If you don't like the current laws on capital punishment, work to change them." Again, you fail to address the rightfulness of cap pun, just more opinion vs opinion. Why not intellectually argue for cap pun by using facts, data, supporting evidence, etc...? Is it that you can't because there aren't a lot of nice things to be said about an act that has been revoked by some of the most unsavory countries on earth? .... could be.

Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense. If criminals interviewed in prison say that the risk of being shot by an armed homeowner prevented them from breaking into houses in a certain area, then I am reasonably sure that there are people that are prevented from committing certain crimes due to the threat of capital punishment. Hell, Charles Manson comes up for parole on a regular basis!! Thank God that California hasn't gone far enough 'round the bend yet to actually parole him... y'all care to have HIM as your next door neighbor? Does the risk of sudden death deter you from skydiving? "Well, it's just wonderful that you are prepared to execute people who are possibly innocent, on the basis of being "reasonably sure" of the deterrent effect." Now ya did it - you've gone and made me get philosophical In Justice class at ASU, Professor Cavendar lectured on deterrence and asked us that we believe in capital punishment having a deterrent affect, whether we actually believe it does or not. With that, he asked that if a person that was thought to be innocent by all was executed, or punished to any degree for that matter, would it still have the same deterrent affect? The answer is yes. In fact, it might even have a greater deterrent effect since not only the guilty were being punished, but the innocent too. Kind of food for thought, huh? Now back to realizing that punishments of all types generally don't lead to deterrence.

"I'm not a lawyer (obviously) so I don't know what the tests are to prove competence to stand trial. " Nor am I a lawyer - tried to be. I'm not holding you accountable for the knowledge of a lawyer. Hell, I can't even do that and I've studied the crap for years! "I also recall reading that in some states, the jury can either decide or recommend punishment - I could be wrong on that, however." Actually it is a recent decision (US Sup Ct) that juries must recommend death or a judge cannot pass that sentence. So it's all states that require jury recommendation. Of course Ray Krone had 2 different juries find him guilty on evidence that was limited to teeth marks, so what does that tell you about juries? "You've asked the question several times, and I've answered it." No you didn't, and you still didn’t in this post. Why avoid writing: "Yes, they should kill kids for committing 1st degree murder." You give some watered-down version of it as you did in this post. I don’t blame you, it's hard to write. "Yes, I believe if they do the crime, they should be held accountable for their actions - if the powers that be decide that the punishment is the loss of their life, so be it. Being held accountable for your actions (personal responsibility) is a bitch." They? Why not write it in a way that says that kids should be killed by the state when they commit 1st degree murder? "I find it odd that liberals have such a problem with capital punishment, but seem to have no problem with abortion. Obviously, I don't want this thread to go there, but it seems a strange dichotomy to me. "Do as I say, not as I do", perhaps?" Actually I find it to be a paradox rather than a dichotomy. Not trying to start a grammar war here, but it seems like a paradox that goes both ways. I’ve thought this for years. Liberals: pro-abortion rights anti-cap pun Conservatives: anti-abortion rights pro-cap pun See, it works both ways. What I can argue in behalf of the liberals is that a person of at least 16 IS a person, not a fetus. The argument of when life begins is still subjective and unsettled. As for killing kids, are you saying that you think it’s ok that the policies of the US parallel these countries: Communist China Iran Congo Nigeria Pakistan Saudi Arabia Yemen Care to go address some of the writings on whether deterrence is achieved thru cap pun as I posted above?

The Dems threw it out there as a way to publicize the fact that the rich aren't going, just the poor. The Dems are against this action, so why would they want a draft.

Considering many of the criminals wear badges, I would say 'criminals' get their guns legally, thst is unless you think the US gov is a criminal entity...... which is debateable. Well, the guns were once purchased legally, unless they were fabrivated, which is unlikely. I think tey mean deirect purchases. In AZ anyone can look in the paper to buy a gun from another citizen, which is how I would think 'criminals' get their guns. I agree, gun control does nothing positive.

You're convoluting a lot of legal concepts/protections here. There are 3 main test for insanity. I can't remember them, but we studied them. I could research them, but it isn't relevant as to the intricacies of, "right-wrong" in this discusion. Anyway, the test of competency to stand trial is one issue. A defendant must be able to understand the charges against him/her. Test of sanity at the time of the commission of the crime is another issue. This is the issue to which you were referring I believe. And the issue of whether or not we execute kids is the issue here I believe. You brought up something about a jury comprised of a person's peers. Well, legally what you are naming is the finder of fact. A jury is the finder of fact, while the judge is the finder of law. A defendant can elect to be tried under a bench trial, where the judge plays the finder of law and of fact, so the, "jury of your peers" thing is essentially rhetoic. I find it a way to disslove the injustices of the structure of the criminal justice system. The larger question, one which you seem to refuse to address head-on, is: Should we execute kids? When we weigh whether a person is of full capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, I think chronological maturity must be considered. We will jail a person for having sex with a person under 18, as we feel they may not be of full maturity, yet we feel we can ignore that concept when that same 16 year old kills a person. This argument is parallel to Fascist issues like mandatoy seat belts. Mandating seat belts to protect a person from themselves smells contradictory when you can then drive to the store to buy alcohol, cigs, and lottery tickets. Hell, we skydive, shouldn't the gov take the same approach and save us from ourselves by prohibiting this deadly activity? Again, do you feel it's fine, just, American, whatever to align ourselves with those fine, fine countries previosuly mentioned and kill our kids via state-sponsored executions? "then they deserve the punishment given by a jury of their peers." The jury is empowered exclusively and only to the extent of the law and the judge, so do you think the law (as provided by the US US Sup Ct) should allow the killing of kids?

Their peers? You mean a bunch of schoolkids? Bahahhha..... exactly. You won't get through to him, but keep trying!

Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense. "If criminals interviewed in prison say that the risk of being shot by an armed homeowner prevented them from breaking into houses in a certain area, then I am reasonably sure that there are people that are prevented from committing certain crimes due to the threat of capital punishment." And the criminals go to other areas that offer less resistance, so what you're referring to is the path of least resistance rather than deterrence. So if I have a club on my car, according to you, and it deters a thief from stealing my car, but he goes to the next block and steals a car there, I have instituted deterrence? No, not according to the scholarly definition of deterrence, as crime did occur, it just didn't occur to me. And as for cap pun, that is a punishment carried out by the state, so that is a bit different too. In order for deterrence to be realized, there must be the element of choice. When the state executes a person, they are not enacting deterrence upon that executed person, but they are trying, so they say, to deter other people from committing crimes eligible for execution. They call this, "General deterrence" rather than specific deterrence. "Hell, Charles Manson comes up for parole on a regular basis!! Thank God that California hasn't gone far enough 'round the bend yet to actually parole him... y'all care to have HIM as your next door neighbor?" I believe he was commuted to life in 72 with Furman v Georgia when the US placed a moratorium on death, right? So that was a federal thing rather than a state thing. How does this answer the question: Should we execute minors? I credit you for hanging in there, but honestly will you answer the question? Should we execute minors?

WOW, Skydive Arizona is going to go away if they dont get the tunnel approved!! Of course it was approved for the permit as Eloy gets lots of $$ from skydivers and I would hate to see what it would survive on w/o it. Still, that is a bold statment to make to the board, almost like a threat.... Scott C. Ya, and the economy started to decline in 98, so that might have a wee bit to do with it. See, this is why skydivers should vote Democrat; Repubs ice the economy, hence no fun times at DZ's.

Marc Hogue, onwer of Coolidge brought his daughter into the tunnel in Vegas a couple years ago - I think she was about 1 to 2 years.

Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense.

No more like Pavlovs experiment. You say something bad....Most times its something bad about Bush. So the automatic response is logical given the amount of times it has happened. Well, name 1 or more positive things Bush has done for the people. Please, no descency back into the White House stuff, or I'll have to break out the criminal record stuff. Describe legislatioin or the sort where Bush ahs done well for the US......some objective stuff.

With that example, the wording becomes clear(er). However, it is still misleading on it's face to the person with no prior knowledge of the situation coming across the site. The change I mentioned in the last post would make the meaning clear to a casual browser coming across the site, without making it look like we are sending 15 year olds to the electric chair. Great, now that we're beyond any ambiguity, how do you feel about the US being with 7 other nations, nations that are thought to be of poor character, that execute kids? It's real hard to defend. See, I went into college in 96 with a lot of the ideals that you state here, but then I found myself realizing I had been lied to about most aspects of new conservatism. Former conservatism consisted of fiscal conservatives. Now the righteous moral conservatives are legislating, and it's getting scarry. I mean Russia, a coutry we have thought of as evil has abolished the death penalty for quite a while. What does that say about us?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture We've made even more gains, I see....

I've got another way to refute your silly avoidance of the fact that we execute juveniles. If Bob was 20 years, 11 months, 30 days and was caught drunk in public, he wouldn't be tried and punished until he was over 21, which would be legal drinking age. Therefore, with your logic applied, he wouldn't be underage when tried and convicted, hence an adult over 21 was convicted with an alcohol charge of minor in possession. Do you see your silliness? See, as I previously wrote, the neo-con agenda is real difficult to defend, just try to revert to misdirection. Good luck..... No misdirection at all... being a conservative, I don't have to account for 'spin' on everything I see, so I read the words AS THEY ARE WRITTEN and am not looking for "nuance" or "misdirection". "Execute": to put to death "Juvenile": a person under the age of legal majority "Execute juvenile": to put to death a person under the legal age of majority See how easy it is to just READ, and not spin? Easy fix: Change the words to the truth (at least for the U.S., I can't vouch for the other countrys, it could be true in their cases) "Countrys that execute individuals for crimes committed while a juvenile" Wow... no twisted meaning to try and get the sympathy mail out... just plain truth - what a shocker, eh? I wrote: If Bob was 20 years, 11 months, 30 days and was caught drunk in public, he wouldn't be tried and punished until he was over 21, which would be legal drinking age. Therefore, with your logic applied, he wouldn't be underage when tried and convicted, hence an adult over 21 was convicted with an alcohol charge of minor in possession. So are you saying Bob was convicted and punished as an adult, with being a minor in possession? Please, answer that.

I don't need to pick it over, but I did get one HELL of a laugh out of someone using the phrase lecturing ME on rhetoric!! My thoughts - Persons under 21 that enlist in the military should be able to smoke, drink and enter contracts at will. Not my fault that the various laws don't allow it. Right, but I'm not disecting your opinion so much, just the reflection of the system offerring few liberties and great responsibility/jeopardy. So what do you think of a system that allows few and late liberty, yet will execute a person at 16 for horrible actions? Isn't the establishment saying, by not legally allowing drinking, smoking, etc.. that a person ins't mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions if they partake? So how is that they then fully understand their actions when they are 16 for other things? Shouldn't the line be drawn accross the board? Furthermore, the establishment could jail them for the rest of thier life w/o killing them, so this isn't an issue incapacity.

Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors? I've got another way to refute your silly avoidance of the fact that we execute juveniles. If Bob was 20 years, 11 months, 30 days and was caught drunk in public, he wouldn't be tried and punished until he was over 21, which would be legal drinking age. Therefore, with your logic applied, he wouldn't be underage when tried and convicted, hence an adult over 21 was convicted with an alcohol charge of minor in possession. Do you see your silliness? See, as I previously wrote, the neo-con agenda is real difficult to defend, just try to revert to misdirection. Good luck.....

Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors? "Actually, the language on the website says (roughly) "Countries that execute juveniles" with the countries listed under it - so how is that NOT saying that the US is executing minors?" Your arguments are based on pure semantics rather than substance. As someone suggested, a person cannot drink alcohol legally before 21, however they are mature enough to die for their actions at 16, or for their country at 17 via Bush's murdering machine in Iraq. They cannot smoke until 18, are not emancipated until 18 absent extreme litigation, are not civilly accountable until 18 in most cases and jurisdictions, having driving restrictions in many jurisdictions before 18. Just pick over this or totally ignore the tough questions with rhetoric.

Again, difference in cultures - we don't let our kids use pacifiers until they're 5, either. At least not usually Evidently the crimes were heinous enough that the state felt the charges, and the punishment, justified. Should we just spat them on the hand and say "Now now, mustn't kill the neighbors...it's not nice!" Bullshit - preschool children know that certain actions carry unpleasant consequences. You expect me to believe that a 16 or 17 year old does *NOT* (unless mentally deficient) realize that murder is WRONG, against the law, punishable by death? Nice use of hyperbole, especially when I stated that the U.S. Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional to sentence to death a criminal under the age of 16. I'll read it when there's an actual study posted, not while it's simply an opinion letter. "Again, difference in cultures - we don't let our kids use pacifiers until they're 5, either. At least not usually " Why, are they still breast feeding until 5 years old? "Evidently the crimes were heinous enough that the state felt the charges, and the punishment, justified." Come on, it isn't the state that executes people, it's the counties. Oh, the state 'pulls the switch,' but the execution order, signed by the governor, originates in the county court. I would think a good ole Texas boy like you would know that, I mean Bush signed 152 or so death warrants w/o investigating one of them, so I think you know what I mean when I say that the governors signature is a rubber stamp. Then you get a gov like Ryan of Illinois and he's a SOB. Really, is it the ugly system or the blood-thirsty American attitude? Are we so far from Salem?

I agree with everything you write, and to expound, 17 years of appeals later, it's cost more to this point than it would have to jail whoever for a lifetime w/o continually attempting to execute. And when whoever is dead, society will have gained nothing except revenge/Old Testament Retribution. After all, as long as the convicted stays convicted, they aren't going anywhere? Who might they kill, other convictees? If so, I don;t see the compassion from the conservatives on that. CONCLUSION: capital punishment IS revenge, which exemplifies the American attitude, and we wonder while crime has fallen over the past 3 years, murder has increased. Where's the so-called deterrence?

So you agree with the O.J. Simpson verdict. And you think Scott Peterson should be set free. Along with Charles Manson... STANDARD OF PROOF: Beyond a Reasonable doubt? Do you think it's possible to have a case that is built purely on circumstantial evidence and have it meet the standard of Beyond a Reasonable doubt? I don't see how, with no eyewitness, no physical evidence, no witness testimony, no anything but things like: You can't account for your whereabouts on the exact night of Feb 12th, 2001 @ 6:53 pm. Who can? Who keeps a diary of where they go every second for all of their life? The prosecution's job is to build a case based upon factual evidence, and the defense chips away at it - unless the defense is putting on an affirmative defense. If the state never meets that standard of proof, theoretically the defense could just say/do nothig, but Americans are blood-thirsty and love to rack em up on convictions.