Butters

It doesn't assume you will break the law. If it assumed you will break the law you wouldn't even be let in. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

We don't know the background of the people entering the country. Should we check the background first and then only fingerprint those with a criminal record? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I'm not sure why it is appalling so long as it is done in a courteous manner and to everyone. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You forgot to mention that a few of the congressmen were to busy taking bribes from lobbyists or molesting children to even realize any of this was taking place. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Fingerprints and a photo ... fine by me. (But then again I'm not one of the people who feel the government is going to commit some crime and frame me with my fingerprints and photo. ) "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Well, it isn't the ideal solution but I guess it will suffice.

You feel that you aren't doing something right during sex because she isn't in pain and asking for an epidural or morphine? No. That is not what I typed. I was just kidding. Anyways, I have never had a child so my opinion counts much less if at all. I would not want to see it for the reasons mentioned above regarding future flashbacks. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Sounds like fun, keep up the good work! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You feel that you aren't doing something right during sex because she isn't in pain and asking for an epidural or morphine? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Then for you ignorance is truely bliss! I had a friend who did something stupid. When asked why he stated, "because I felt like it". I didn't understand, I did disapprove, and I don't consider myself ignorant. (Yes, ignorance is bliss, but I'm not bliss, and I'm not ignorant.) "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You do not have to understand to disapprove. I don't understand why some people do some things (and sometimes they don't either) and yet I can and still disapprove of them sometimes. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

mass hysteria claiming insanity but not hypnotized or drugged to do it actually the judge was a mass killer and he did it to save the rest of the courtroom - but no one knows once you go down the all or nothing reasoning path, any wacky reason is good enough to let the criminal go - that's what 0.00% defines - it really is "beyond any imaginable doubt" some people just aren't strong enough to acknowledge that An then the black and white mixed and made gray. I vote that it would be chaos (due to immoral behavior) at 0.00% and chaos (due to revolution) at 100.00%. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I disagree with the "almost" statement. 0.00% mean everybody goes free regardless of the amount or quality of the evidence. Ditto, 100% means everybody is jailed "just in case". there's no "almost" with absolute statements, just people blinding themselves against reality - posing I say almost because I believe there are situations that existed, exist, or could exist that a guilty person could be found guilty and an innocent person couldn't be found guilty in the same situation. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Haven't you ever heard of sharing, and I don't mean sharing yourself with all those women, I mean sharing all those women with me! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

A person is found guilty based on the quantity and or quality of evidence. There are cases where a guilty and innocent person have the same quantity and or quality of evidence against them. In these cases we must render the same innocent or guilty verdict for both people. So here is how the poll works ... The lower the number the higher the qauntity and or quality of evidence must be. The higher the number the lower the quantity and or quality of evidence must be. 0.00% is stating that the evidence must be of such high quantity and or quality that almost everyone is found innocent. 100.00% is stating that the evidence must be of such low quantity and or quality that almost everyone is found guilty. The idea is to pick a percent in which you believe most innocent people will be found innocent (because the quality and or quantity of evidence has to be so high that it is unlikely that an innocent person would have that evidence against them) while at the same time most guilty people will be found quilty (because the quality and or quantity of evidence can be so low that is is likely that a guilty person would have that evidence against them). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Is there something wrong with Wings? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Thanks, the error is corrected. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

What percent of innocent people are you willing to find guilty so that guilty people are not found innocent? Example: Choosing 0.50 means you are willing to find 50 innocent people guilty so that 10,000 guilty people are not found innocent. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Realize that the cost of setting a guilty person free is that they have no rehabilitation or punishment and may commit another crime harming another innocent person (so an innocent person will suffer if found guilty or may suffer if a guilty person is found innocent). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. That's been my arg for years - more injustice in punishing an innocent person than in letting a guilty one go free. My point to the thread wasn't to try and determine a fool proof method for executing those found guilty of some crimes. (I do realize that there are many complications with what I suggested and with almost any other alternative.) It was to point out that we use finite resources on individuals who will spend the majority of their lives in a prison cell. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Yes, I thought of those situations and was hesitant to use them examples. I was just trying to convey that there are situations where someone is found guilty and there are situations where someone is guilty. Does this make sense? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Um, that's the standard for conviction there. Courts usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. I personally would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent person executed. This is merely the inability for me to express in words my thoughts in such a way that the standard evidence used for conviction differentiates from what I consider overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. This is why I attempted to give examples such as a person is caught and apprehended in the act, person admits guilt, person caught on video, person is identified by multiple reliable witnesses, etc ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Becuase we can't help but to execute innocent people by, "mistake." Yes, we can. If there is a way to have a death penalty without risking killing innocents, why hasn't it ever been tried? Please, tell the world the secret! Only execute the people found guilty when there exists overwhelming evidence that is not disputable and leaves no doubt. (Person is caught and apprehended in the act, person admits guilt, person caught on video, person is identified by multiple reliable witnesses, etc...) "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Suicide isn't right for everybody but it may be right for you. (J/K) PS: I just try to avoid these people. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

After seeing that type of sentiment here all time you are surprised to read it (again)? Surprised, no. Frustrated, yes. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch