Richards

The trade-off then is the risk of executing an innocent person vs the deterrent effect. I am still undecided on that. I would feel no pity for a cold blooded killer who was executed, but I can at least see why opponents have their reservations given the flaws in the justice system. It may be that if a life sentence actually meant life in prison, and accomplices got the same you could find a comparable deterent effect. Even if there was not much deterent, you would also get more accomplices of the street too. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I've heard that argument before but I have always felt it was fundamentally flawed for the following reason; Society is broken down into 2 categories, group A (the ones who committed the crime) and group B (the ones who didn't commit the crime). Presuming all of group A get caught and are interviewed and say they were not detered by some tough new law, does the fact that 100% of those who committed the crime were not deterred mean that no-one was deterred? Since people in group B were not arrested and therefore not interviewed how do you know for sure that none of them might have committed the crime had it not been for a new tough law? Barring crimes of passion, nobody who commits a crime does so under the expectation that they will be caught. This does not mean that the ones who did not offend wouldn't have anyway. I realise there are studies that "prove" both sides of the deterrent argument, and short of an in depth analysis of how these studies were conducted it is hard to tell how accurate any of them are. I tend to side with the "deterence works" side even though many will never be detered, somewhat because of my own experiences. In my life I have seen a cause and effect relationship between potential consequences and peoples willingness to cross certain lines. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

This is where we disagree. If we hold all parties responsible we can save lives by placing the burden on the accomplices to either not go along in the first place, or take a greater role in controlling all parties involved. It is not perfectly predictable but perhaps but it will save innocent lives (see the two examples I gave in my post to Jakee on page six). As for arguments that he never anticipated it going that far, well most drunk drivers do not plan on killing people either, but we still get them with manslaughter. Besides, nobody offers guaantee's of risk limitation to the average joe walking down the street. There is no rule that says, if you walk down 6th ave you run the risk of being robbed but are guaranteed that no harm will come to you, but if you go down 7th ave the robbery can proceed to assault but are guaranteed it will not result in death or rape. If you go down 8th ave you can be raped but are guaranteed that it will not result in being murdered...etc. Why give criminals such guarantees? It is not about vengeance. It is simply about throwing some variability into the risk they assume and passing the burden of risk from the innocent onto the guilty (even the accomplice) which may save innocent lives. If you know that by partaking in a crime with me you can be held fully accountable for what I do you might not back me up. Without backup I might nt have the guts to do it on my own. Conversely if you come with me on a crime and I start going too far, you will have a vested interest in stopping me. If a few acomplices get nailed for a crime above what they agreed to partake in, it is worth it if it saves lives. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

True, and that is a shame. I think in her case it was an honest misunderstanding though, possibly due to poor choice of wording on my part. What is your take on the idea of equal consequence for all parties involved? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

What you say makes so much sense it is staggering some freeloaders cannot get it. The give and take of beer is not 100% even all the time but you would expect that stigma alone would stop people from drinking disproportionately more than they give. Apparently it doesn't. Most freeloaders do eventually get a reputation and find it increasingly harder to find a sucker who will subsidize them. Someone just needs to be willing to be the first bad guy to put him in his place before others follow suit. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver. Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well. I'm against the death penalty in all situations, and the time I've spent working for the prosecution and defense in criminal cases has only strengthened my position, for the following reasons. 1. Its irreversible. What if there's new evidence or technology that can exonerate? 2. Prosecutorial misconduct. Look at the Duke rape case... 3. Incompetent defense attorneys. They've slept through death penalty trials. 4. Eyewitness unreliability. What you think you saw isn't always what you really saw. 5. Juries aren't always right... look at how many cases are overturned on appeal. I support killing if it's necessary for removal of the threat in self-defense situations. Not in cases of state-sanctioned homicide. Lock him up and if there is new evidence, we can always let him out. I think you misunderstood me, so I probably did not articulate my point well. I was not arguing for the death penalty. My argument was that whatever the penalty is for the shooter, it should apply to the driver as well. I agree that there is the risk of executing an innocent man, so the argument against the death penalty is valid. I simply feel that sentences for crimes like this should be longer and that in cases like this even the accomplices should be held equally accountable. If a man kills someone while robbing them he should get life without parole. His drivers, lookouts and any other accomplices should get the same. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver. Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Apparently it was a banned commercial. Too bad really, it would have been a big hit. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I think you are confusing diversity with multi-culturalism. Ethnic diversity does not conflict with integration, as learning our language and adapting to our way of doing things where neccessary does not change the immigrants ethnicity or religion. The issue of seperate ethnic enclaves comes with what we in Canada call multiculturalism (and it doesn't work), whereby you proclaim that since the nation was made of immigrants we do not have a distinct culture but a mosaic that is ever changing. I personally do not agree with multiculturalism (MC). Granted even with a melting pot approach the predominate culture will change somewhat, but the core values tend to stay. With MC, newcomers have contempt for the pre-existing culture and refuse to become part of it. This leads to ethnic enclaves and eventually balkanization (yes I know..a cliche). As discussed in another forum, diversifying the intake of immigrants instead of having them come in homogeneus ethnic waves will mitigate this effect. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That would be like charging impaired drivers with manslaughter even if no-one was hit. I am not arguing from a strictly legal point of view. It just seems to me that if every party to a crime is held equally responsible, then violent criminals will have a much harder time getting people to be their back-up. It will also shift the burden on all participants to ensure that no-one crosses the line. Let me give you two possible scenarios. 1: Say I am a crazy violent thug who everyone expects will eventually end up in jail for murder (with some people it's not a matter of if but when) and you are just a mild thug. If I ask you to come along and back me up on a crime and you know that you wil be held fully accountable for anything I do, you might not support me (you might not even support anyone in a robbery), and you will stick to petty crime or robbery with people who you are reasonably certain are all bark. I on the other hand, will be less likely to commit the robbery because now I have no-one to back me up (most thugs like the odds stacked in their favour). 2. You and one other person come with me to rob a guy (mostly with threats, intimidation and some mild roughing up).Suddenly I go crazy and for no reason other than to show how bad I am, I punch the victim out and start kicking him visciously in the head while he is unconscious. A few more kcks from me, and both you and your buddy are going down for murder; are you going to stand there and let me finish? This policy can save some lives, and if that means that some lesser participants in crime get sentences that are disproportionate to their level of participation then so be it. It is worth it if it saves some innocent citizens. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I think the distinction is that one made a choice to take part in a violent crime (at least one that involved the threat of violence). You know when you drive drunk you can accidentally kill someone so manslaughter makes sense. When you participate in a robberry you know that murder is a possibility and therefore holding you responsible for murder is fair. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=COMW3IruNMo This made me laugh, thought I would share it My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

State run health care can work if it is not politicised. The problem we have in Canada is not that the idea of state run health care beig flawed so much as the implementation. For example, we have had lobby groups scream that it is a persons "right" to have a sex change operation covered by health care, and the government relented (despite the fact that we are running short of funds for life saving treatments). OHIP at one point covered tattoo removal, breast implants...etc. If you can keep the special interest groups out of it and ensure that it is directed to priorities such as saving life, making broken people fit to go back to work, diminishing physical pain, and making the end of a persons life as comfortable as possible (but not needlessly extending a dying persons life just for the purpose of having a pulse). This would go a long way towards saving the system. People who wish to be covered for the exotics (cosmetic, unconventional treatments) can get extra private insurance. Also have people actually pay a user fee. I went to a walk in clinic (a prescribed follow up on a workplace concussion), and in the waiting room I heard people telling the nurse that they were there because they had headaches, blisters, colds, stiff muscles from working out...etc.I wanted to shoot these idiots because the doctor would tell them the same thing I could have told them, yet billed health care for more dollars that could be put towards real problems. Most insurance policies require you to pay a deductible, so should health care. If you had to fork over $20-30 dollars for a visit, you would be more inclined to ask yourself if the trip was really neccessary. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

My strategy in that situation would be to run away screeching at the top of my lungs like a little girl In my case it would depend. If it was a one time rare incident (one in a million) I might get someone to remove it alive, but if it was regular like say mice, I might take the extermination approach. I would not want to always have to watch my step. Heyyyy.....I have a Remington 870 Express. Fun little gun. Are you allowed to use them for pest control in your neighborhood? As long as you don't shoot dogs...that would be sad. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That could be a wee bit inneficient. Our taxes pay our leaders to make some decisions on our behalf. That is their job, to lead By virtue of voting for him (on whatever issues he promoted during his campaign) we have already implicitly voted on the issues. Referendums should be reserved for when they are absolutely neccessary. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Well it looks like this is true. http://www.llu.edu/llumc/emergency/venom-er/arachno.html My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Strangely I find that releiving. I would rather know as soon as it happens Is there any way to confirm this? Sure, if you do not mind. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

How painfull is the bite? I saw a documentary where a woman had been bitten and did not realise it, but got violently ill later on and went to the hospital. Not sure how they figured out after the fact what had bitten her and what anti-venom to use Is this normal or will you usually feel it when it happens? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

You have completely overlooked the crime of driving slow in the passing lane, and of course telemarketting. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

You might think differently if you are ever struck by one of these idiots going 100 MPH and they total you and your car. It is EXTREME violence with a deadly weapon... how many foot pounds of energy does a bullet hit you with.. as opposed to a car or truck traveling at 100 MPH. Or at the very least we can say that they have made a conscious choice to engage in behaviour that they new could result in death or dismemberment for some unlucky person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Based on that, impaired drivers should face severe consequences. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

My wife is very catholic and I am nothing. I am not neccessarily an atheist, but I am an undecided (agnostic ?). It caused some friction when I blasphemed or told religious jokes but for the most part it was a non-issue My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Perhaps that'll work if you can stop him before the first person is dead. After that, it's not what he does that'll get you, it's what he gets caught at. Agreed, but I am not worried as much about accomplices helping hide dead bodies as I am about accomplices standing by and letting their freinds turn living people into dead bodies. This can save lives. If you are with me on a crime, then yes you will have an incentive to help hide any bodies I create but you will have a very big incentive to stop me from making any bodies in the first place. Even if it is just a mugging. For example, if you me and a third guy are thugs and we decide to corner a single guy (just using our hands) and rob him (mosly with bit of shoving and intimidation) then yes you can get into some trouble for that. If suddenly I go berzerk and punch him unconscious and then start kicking him in the head while he is unconscious, both you and your buddy will be up on murder charges if you do not stop me. There are all sorts of variables but I am sure this will save more lives than it will risk. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No because being at a bar with your buddy is not a crime. If the driver in this case had merely been driving his friend from point A to B with no criminal intent, and then his buddy just jumped out for no reason and shot someone else, I would not hold the driver responsible. Conversely if you went to a bar with your buddy to "stir up some shit" and then followed along with your buddy while he followed some guy out saying "lets fuck this guy up" then I would hold you and your buddy equally responsible if your buddy went too far and killed the guy. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No. Since you will be held accountable for what he does, you stop him. If I was trying to do something that would result in punishment for us both would you not try to stop me? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.