3 of 3
3
Death Penalty
Posted: 22 July 2008 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
JRM5001 - 23 June 2008 11:45 AM

... Last, your insinuation that the invasion of Iraq was somehow religiously inspired has no basis.  If the invasion of Iraq was a religious quest, why did the US go after the most secular regime there?  We could have hit Saudi Arabia and taken Mecca and Medina; the US could have taken Jerusalem, the place where Christ was crucified; or we could have attacked the fundamentalist Iranian regime, who held our embassy staff hostage for 444 days, and whose president calls us the “Great Satan.”  Iraq was the least religious target in the reason.  Further, unless I am mistaken, there have been no efforts to convert anyone to Christianity or to install a Christian based government.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.

My thought: Before 9/11/01 a reasonable person might have thought it a good time to consider downsizing the US army and air force. After all, the Soviet Union was no more and what other nation had forces which needed a counter? This would not play well with Dick Cheney’s employers and friends who rely on US wars of aggression for large portions of income. The WTC attacks needed a response escalated to the point where major profits could be had, thus Afghanistan had to have Iraq added to the list to provide the needed expenditures and profits. Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary have made major profits by over billing for shoddy goods and services, sometimes resulting in the deaths of US service personnel.

NEW YORK - Inferior electrical work by private contractors on U.S. military bases in Iraq is more widespread than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to a published report.
A Senate panel investigating the electrocutions of Americans on bases in Iraq was told last week by former KBR Inc. electricians that the contractor used employees with little electrical expertise to supervise subcontractors in Iraq and hired foreigners who couldn’t speak English. The Pentagon has said 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq since September 2003. It has ordered Houston-based KBR to inspect all the facilities it maintains in Iraq for electrical hazards.

The New York Times reported on its Web site Thursday night that many more people have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to internal Army documents. A log compiled this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters almost daily, the paper reported.

During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military’s largest dining hall in the country, according to the documents obtained by the Times.

So while they had their eyes on the oil, the real prize was military contracts, often no bid or open ended, and the profits from them. Dubya was their stooge, someone they knew they could manipulate into doing their bidding. Not even the deaths of the “brave soldiers” must stand in the way of those.

And Mr Magoo will bring 4 more years of this.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20
Occam - 17 June 2008 08:29 PM

You people make everything too complex.  I suggest a simplification.  First, get rid of jails because they are just places to train criminals to be more effective.  Second, change the system to make three classes of crime: 1) Breaking a law, 2) Stealing, 3) Murder.  Handle them as follows:
1) Assign a schedule of fines.
2) The person or company found guilty of stealing forfeits all his/its assets to the government.  The company would be dissolved.  Personal assets that are hidden by belonging to a family member or being kept overseas would also be forfeit.
3) Everyone found guilty of murder is sentenced to capital punishment with a maximum of six months for appeals.  However, if a person is executed then later found innocent, the judge, district attorney, police involved, prosecution witnesses, and the jury would all have been complicit in a murder and, therefore, be sentenced to be executed.  This would either take care of the population problem, or possibly, reduce capital punishment to a much more manageable level.  smile
Occam

Tongue in cheek no doubt, Occam, but I offer one more class of sanctions as a serious option: loss of social benefits. So if you are convicted of a crime you stand to lose your medicare, your pension, eligibility for welfare, etc.

Some people make a lifestyle of petty crime and social services. They might think twice if they knew that real sanctions awaited their actions. Emptying the jails of drug “criminals”, taxing the bejesus of said drugs, and reloading the prisons with true felons could go a long way toward a responsible society.

 Signature 

Dwight Jones
http://www.humanism.ws
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Our lives teach us who we are.”
-Salman Rushdie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Tongue in cheek no doubt, Occam

  I’m crushed.  Have you ever known me to post tongue in cheek?  downer

There you go again - making things more complicated.  If they are going to lose social benefits anyway, let’s just add them to the capital punishment list, then we don’t have to worry about them trying to sneak things like food from soup kitchens, going to a free clinic, using public roads and parks, etc.  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
Dwight Jones - 23 July 2008 07:18 AM

Tongue in cheek no doubt, Occam, but I offer one more class of sanctions as a serious option: loss of social benefits. So if you are convicted of a crime you stand to lose your medicare, your pension, eligibility for welfare, etc.

Some people make a lifestyle of petty crime and social services. They might think twice if they knew that real sanctions awaited their actions. Emptying the jails of drug “criminals”, taxing the bejesus of said drugs, and reloading the prisons with true felons could go a long way toward a responsible society.

They don’t think. Even the crooks like Enron don’t plan ahead to protect themselves from foreseeable consequences. A crack whore won’t do better. And your plan is a modern version of outlawing. You’d have to go the final step - a reward for them dead or alive.

One plan I would like to see for car thieves, bicycle thieves and the like: 5 years walking in a circle. Every day they have to get up, sling their bedding on their backs, and walk to the next food cache which is 16 miles away on a big circle. Every day the food is dropped 16 miles away from them. Day in and day out, month in and month out. Would they develop a respect for other peoples’ transportation devices after this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20
Occam - 23 July 2008 10:29 AM

There you go again - making things more complicated.  If they are going to lose social benefits anyway, let’s just add them to the capital punishment list, then we don’t have to worry about them trying to sneak things like food from soup kitchens, going to a free clinic, using public roads and parks, etc.  LOL Occam

But seriously, losing social benefits is a different kind of punishment, because you know beforehand what your sentence will be. You have your whole life to pre-comprehend it, it’s not so easy to forget as some possible sanction following a one-off crime, wherein you could plead all manner of mitigating circumstances. And society as a whole benefits from striking you from citizenship and the rolls.

No, in any semi-socialist society (outside the US obviously) losing free health care et al would be very serious. And some people don’t fear incarceration like they would losing a pension- many people get conservative when it comes to money - criminals included.

Of course you’d need tighter ID standards to enforce such provisos, such as national identity cards, and they will come.

 Signature 

Dwight Jones
http://www.humanism.ws
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Our lives teach us who we are.”
-Salman Rushdie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
Dwight Jones - 23 July 2008 11:18 AM

But seriously, losing social benefits is a different kind of punishment, because you know beforehand what your sentence will be. You have your whole life to pre-comprehend it, it’s not so easy to forget as some possible sanction following a one-off crime, wherein you could plead all manner of mitigating circumstances. And society as a whole benefits from striking you from citizenship and the rolls.

No, in any semi-socialist society (outside the US obviously) losing free health care et al would be very serious. And some people don’t fear incarceration like they would losing a pension- many people get conservative when it comes to money - criminals included.

Of course you’d need tighter ID standards to enforce such provisos, such as national identity cards, and they will come.

Most of these people are ‘marginal’ at best so they are outside of social support systems, and they simply don’t see these proposed benefits - they are ‘over the horizon’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20

I disagree. In Canada small-time repeat criminals are major “clients” of our welfare, re-education, rehab and detox programs, just to name a few. The social opprobium from becoming a non-person - no passport e.g. - would gradually sink in. Restitution might be their only option. Unless they’re mentally ill (who are left to the steets, BTW) any sane person must be challenged to straighten up.

But more to the point - if they are over-the-horizon, do we care? Strike them from everywhere but the police blotters- and should we care? We’re beyond reforming them, we just stop granting them any benefits whatsoever, spending good money afer bad.

Responsiblity is required of any citizen - without it they aren’t one.

 Signature 

Dwight Jones
http://www.humanism.ws
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Our lives teach us who we are.”
-Salman Rushdie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
Dwight Jones - 23 July 2008 01:29 PM

I disagree. In Canada small-time repeat criminals are major “clients” of our welfare, re-education, rehab and detox programs, just to name a few. The social opprobrium from becoming a non-person - no passport e.g. - would gradually sink in. Restitution might be their only option. Unless they’re mentally ill (who are left to the streets, BTW) any sane person must be challenged to straighten up.

But more to the point - if they are over-the-horizon, do we care? Strike them from everywhere but the police blotters- and should we care? We’re beyond reforming them, we just stop granting them any benefits whatsoever, spending good money after bad.

Responsibility is required of any citizen - without it they aren’t one.

For them the benefits are over the horizon. The best thing is to recognize them, move them up country to a moderately secure facility, and reintegrate those that can be helped. The prison to street and back cycle is expensive and ineffective.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2008 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2008-03-19
Dwight Jones - 23 July 2008 07:18 AM
Occam - 17 June 2008 08:29 PM

You people make everything too complex.  I suggest a simplification.  First, get rid of jails because they are just places to train criminals to be more effective.  Second, change the system to make three classes of crime: 1) Breaking a law, 2) Stealing, 3) Murder.  Handle them as follows:
1) Assign a schedule of fines.
2) The person or company found guilty of stealing forfeits all his/its assets to the government.  The company would be dissolved.  Personal assets that are hidden by belonging to a family member or being kept overseas would also be forfeit.
3) Everyone found guilty of murder is sentenced to capital punishment with a maximum of six months for appeals.  However, if a person is executed then later found innocent, the judge, district attorney, police involved, prosecution witnesses, and the jury would all have been complicit in a murder and, therefore, be sentenced to be executed.  This would either take care of the population problem, or possibly, reduce capital punishment to a much more manageable level.  smile
Occam

Tongue in cheek no doubt, Occam, but I offer one more class of sanctions as a serious option: loss of social benefits. So if you are convicted of a crime you stand to lose your medicare, your pension, eligibility for welfare, etc.

Some people make a lifestyle of petty crime and social services. They might think twice if they knew that real sanctions awaited their actions. Emptying the jails of drug “criminals”, taxing the bejesus of said drugs, and reloading the prisons with true felons could go a long way toward a responsible society.

I agree with jails being overcrowded with non-violent offenders.  However, the taking away of social benefits is partly the cause of crime in the first place.  In societies with a fairer distrubution of wealth crime rates are lower.

 Signature 

Barry Manilow didn’t write I Write The Songs. Bruce Johnston did.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2009 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2009-01-24

We should strive to avoid death but there are many who deserve to die.  In the old days, we could send those we didn’t like to other lands.  Now, the earth seems small and overpopulated.  If someone kills those I love in a cold senseless act, I would want the individual permanently removed as a future threat.  The culture of America puts up with many strange things, but we all have the right to be safe and live without fear.  I would hate to have to decide the faith of a person but I still support that death is an option.

 Signature 

“knowledge is power”

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3