Lucky...

No law says he can't run for VP again. Think about it, everything else stays the same and all the changes is the figurehead. Hmmm. A Republican dream...

I repeated what I saw/heard last August. We could have slammed Tokyo or better yet, we could have dropped one just off the shore of Japan somewhere as a warning. I do believe we wanted to see what kind of casualty damage it would create. Never mind, America is the best, we never murder thousands of innocent people.

Remember teh P-3 incident? We didn't do shit.

You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy? I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this.

Well, there's a lot of domestic violence and corporate corruption including raiding retirement funds; do we just say, "Oh well, that's teh way it is" or be disgusted at our governemnt of being so Imperialistic and rotten? Remember, another way it is, is that countries can aly against us and, well, that's the way it is.

Maybe it will...but am I wrong? Only a small part of that is my quote. But wrong about what?

This is the biggest bullshit argument ever. Sure the US used atomic weapons on Japan in WW2. It ended the war and DID on a whole save lives (if you don't think so, well... nothing can be done to convince you). What most people SEEM to forget is that JAPAN started the war with us. JAPAN was pretty universally seen as the "bad guy". Japan's use of suicide missions (pacific islands) and kamikazes was a pretty good indicator of what they'd do to win. The nukes were a horrible thing, but I'm sure it wasn't just a happy US government saying "haha, watch this!" when they decided to use them. Iran openly threatens the world. Iran constantly violates the UN guidelines (since so many of you hold the UN in such esteem). Most of the world has come out AGAINST Iran having nukes, except for China and Russia and even they kinda say they don't want them to have nukes. Who are the bad guys? Who is sabre rattling and trying to make it obvious that they're gearing up for war? I fully expect some nitpicky replies that avoid the general idea of my post... but that's to be expected. Well, not according to Discovery channel, but they're a bunch of icky liberals right?

Well I am unsure of your nationality but it is quite possible that without the use of nuclear weapons in WWII that you may not have ever been born and that your country may have been defeated and all it's people enslaved, and the counry's resources plundered. On the other hand if that doesn't bother you then give up all you have and remove yourself from the gene pool. I am probably more well versed in the area of nuclear weapons than the average person and I find them both abhorrent and neccessary. 1) Germany fell when Hitler died, April 30, 1945. 2) We dropped the bombs in Aug 45. 3) Japan was handcuffed by mid-summer 45 and barely fighting, as we could concentrate our efforts on them after finishing most of Europe. 4) The US had taken back most or all of teh South Pacific by Summer 45. How is it that the A-bomb did us any good? The war was basically over by the time we dropped them. All Atomic/nuclear devices have done is to seperate the world and make people resort to 9/11 type tactics. That's a meaningful and helpful assignment.

And I bet you call them cowards for 9/11. This, Iron fist" rule will certainly end up killing us all.

i think America should be made to give up all its nuclear weapons, you've shown that you can't be trusted not to use them !!! America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country...not once, but twice and you justify using them by saying you were at war with the other country and wanted to "save more lives" by bringing the war to and end quicker When you inavde Iran, what if Iran uses them against America to "stop anymore deaths on their part" like you said about why it was ok to drop TWO nuclear bombs on Japan ? So, your argument of it being ok for you to have them because you can be trusted doesn't convince me, America has already shown it can't be trusted with them Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele.

Really? We unneccessarily dropped them o(A-bomb)n Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 45, then started nuclear testing in the Bikini Islands, Kwajalene and others after WWII, causing cancer in the locals for decades - water babies, etc.... Are we the 3rd graders, or is it just nationalist to say so?

I see that to an extent, but you are speaking from the perspective of someone who respects the law. I do agree that all the penalty in the world means nothing if you will not get caught, but with respect to hardenned criminals I am not sure that the speeding analogy is entirely accurate. Many criminals do factor in minor fines and short jail sentences as the cost of doing business. Marginal benefit vs marginal cost. While you cannot get rid of crime I think that increasing the marginal cost will put some criminals out of the market. That said I think the presence of cops does help deter would be bad guys. Do think we should have more cops walking beats (as opposed to driving around in their bubble(car) so as to increase the presence? Cheers, Richards Most criminals don't have complex thought processes and teh ones that do rarely get caught. I don't see criminals factoring in the possibility of getting caught. I understand your position and frustration with crime, but to lower the iron fist is unworkable, unrealistic and fruitless.

That same argument has been used with respect to police chases. The argument that if someone is trying to evade police they are likely to cause a crash so police should not pursue. I disagree. A judge can take into account other factors but once convicted there should be a reverse onus on the defence to explain why the maximum penalty is not required. If you are concerned about criminals reacting violently when cornered then we simply have to increase the penalties for resisting/evading arrest. Richards So with police chases you say it's a good idea to pursue and kill innocent people as the perp runs lights? As for sentencing, the onus is neutral; the prosecution brings in all aggravating circumstances and the defense mitigates. But as far as the logic goes, harsher punishment leads to essentially drawing teh line in the sand, only problem is when innocent people die in the process.

When I read this what comes out is that you are allowing the bad people of the country to dictate to the rest of how we need to react to bad situations. Are the bad guys kind of winning all over when they make us change our humanity by stooping to their levels? Most of the rest of the world has come to this conclusion. Or just allowing the bad people to write our rules of treatment by matching their acts 1 for 1. The sky is falling? What percentage of people are criminal? So do you think this small percentage would change the rest of us? This is a little grand... The Woman Suffrage Movement? (1920's) Hell, the Revolutionary War was an organization of freedom and relief, so how are these new movements? Come again. Human rights groups and all kinds of rights groups have been around for decades if not centuries. Don't make a small percentage of them represent the whole. Also, aren't kids a reflection of society? Isn't society getting worse, or are these kids just tainted in the womb? If we get religious here, they believe we all make decisions and are born with zero influence, so with that, why are kids now making worse decisions than before? It would have to be the influence, right? BTW, I don't believe that religious fallacy. I think people are born with certain very general predispositions and they are shaped from there. So you're saying less punishment = less deterrence = less adherence to the law? Thee has never been a conclusive peer-reviewed study shown that deterrence leads to less crime, at least not that I've read. It's utopian to think of, but simply not true. 12 states don't use CP, yet some have lower murder rates than those that use CP often. To think a potential criminal or murderer thinks about the consequence is primitive thinking. Really? We are one of the few industrialized nations to still have CP, we have 2.3 million or so incarcerated at any time, which is 1:140 or so, and we just quit killing kids 6 months ago, 1 of 8 nations that still had that system. 19 of the last 39 known juvenile executions were done by the US, so where's your reference that we are easy on crime? Yes, please post some data or reference to your argument. To me, it seems that you are proposing a Draconian form of punishment, just not calling it that.

If you are convcted/incarcerated you lose the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and the right to vote. You maintain most 5th and 6th, and of course 8th, but they don't pay attention the 8th anyway. The there is restitution, which is enforced. What if the conviction was tainted? No appeals? There are degrees of murder. Ted Bundy can't be compared to teh guy who comes home to watch someone boinking his wife. As for humane death, so you want to become as heineous as the perp? Do you think it enacts deterrence, or is it just good ole fashioned retribution? We can't denounce murder, then do it ourselves and be taken seriously. Virtually all other industrialized countries have done away with CP, but not teh US. In fact, we just stopped killing juveniles 6 months ago.

Kind of where I am. It sucks that major US Sup Ct decisions stem from mostly scumbags. Miranda was a rapist, Terry was a robber, and Dickerson a bank robber. But then there are always the Mapp vs Ohio, where the cops ebtered w/o a warrant looking for Communism propaganda, only found porn and tried to admit it. Point is, we protect scumbags in order to write law, precedent to protect descent people.

What they do in many jurisdictions is to award restitution to the victim at the time of criminal sentencing. Then if the perp paroles out, as most do, then he/she has to pay thsi back in the first term of probation or be extended an additional term. If he/she doesn't pay ti back by then, then he/she is released off probation considering all other terms are met, then the restitution rolls over to a civil judgment. The victim can then collect, do a recording of it, etc.... As for violent crimes, there needs to be a reasonable middle-ground. If we jumo too quickly to harsh punishment, I think we will have a situation of all-or-nothing when criminals are cornered. It could actually spark more violent crime. To think that we can lock em up longer and enact deterrence is inane.

Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it? You're applying logic to an emotional issue. There is very convincing physiological and anatomical evidence that the brain is not fully mature until about age 20. No life-long decisions should be made before that time. I wrote: Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it? So if you're stating that I'm applying logic to an emotional issue, I don't see the emotion here. I think you may have been replying to the person IO was replying to. You are being logical in response to an issue that is emotional, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" emotion. You can't argue logically with someone who's response is emotional. I gottcha. Most criminal statutes are driven by a degree of irrational emotion.... hang em and let god sort em out.

Common sense would have to be applied. Obviously sending an 8 year old to adult court sounds loony. Richards Well, it is the system and the rules. What the legislators do is to write laws that give prosecutors all kinds of power to convict people, but they don't write in safeguards. This country and the individual states are so pro-prosecution that they ignore logic, so I hate to advocate them punishing more harshly. It's fine to say we should interject logic, but there are sooooo many examples of the establishment not doing so.

Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it? You're applying logic to an emotional issue. There is very convincing physiological and anatomical evidence that the brain is not fully mature until about age 20. No life-long decisions should be made before that time. I wrote: Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it? So if you're stating that I'm applying logic to an emotional issue, I don't see the emotion here. I think you may have been replying to the person IO was replying to.

Girls aren't the perpetrators of statutory rape, the men are. Kids are much more savvy now than they were years ago. Kids know the difference between petty crimes and big trouble. They know they can usually skate due to their age. That must stop. I wrote: Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse You replied with: Come on man, I was clear..... girls aren't capable of consensual sex, therefore no consent can be given, so even if they nod their heads yes and voluntarily jump down on their knees, the man is still committing statutory rape due to her incapacity to make an adult decision. I wasn't saying the girl was committing rape, just that since she can't make an adult decision at that age that it then becomes a form of rape - get it? But not savy enough to vote, smoke, drink (age has actually risen), view pornos, or even listen to certainb kinds of music and movies. Bad argument. And kids didn't 20 and 40 years ago? Please. No, before they knew they could skate, now it's not so. With transfer in some states below age 10, they know they can't skate. When I was a kid 25 years ago I knew I could skate, but I wasn't a criminal due to that.

Teenagers? Not that it happends real often, but statutorily in AZ juvi's can be transferred at age 8 - 17

One that pretty much has to let these kids free with no record when they get older. That was clearly lacking, hence the push to a different tact, As for the 12 minors in the entire world....sure, whatever. Just imagine the number of conscious lies being made in that statement. I think we're convoluting issues here. If a juvenile is tried in juvi court, the records can be accessed sometimes - used to be sealed forever. If a juvi is transferred to adult court, the record is wholly public forever.

Well, that is quite easy really. When it comes to violence kids know what they are doing, when it comes to sex, they obviously have no clue. Just look at american entertainment. Violence is abundent, but god forbid a boobie makes it on tv. I don't know how much truth in your post there is vs sarcasm, but just as kids don't have capacity to understand the outcome of sex, they may not for crimes as well. Now they know that sex can lead to pregnancy and STD's, and that violence can lead to injury and death, but they may not be able to comprehend the outcome of smaller acts that ultimately lead to more grand acts. It's hard to justify Life w/o parole fro people who can't vote and who don't have a full compliment of Constitutional rights.

Statutory rape is called so because by statute the girl is too young to understand the outcome of her actions and is incapable of consensual intercourse. With that, how are they supposed to understand other actions they commit? Kinda doubling, isn't it?