No, I'm not particularly angry at this guy. I'll admit this attack didn't impact me much emotionally.

So says the Yankee fan.

FWIW, 9/11 impacted me profoundly on an emotional level, and I didn't know anybody who got killed or even hurt. All I could think of was the images in my mind of the stewardess with her throat slit or the people who chose to die by plunging 80 or so stories rather than be consumed by flames.

In the same way, I am now imagining what it is like to have your 8 yr old son blown to pieces or to have your legs shredded off by small pieces of shrapnel.

It happened in Boston but it could have happened anywhere in America. It could have happened at the Chicago St. Patrick's day parade, for example. It could have happened at any large outside gathering anywhere there are lots of Americans congregated together.

This is not to criticize you, snapper. But I feel impacted by things like this, even if it doesn't touch me personally.

- Option A: Death at age 25.

- Option B: The potential to live until old age while provided with meals, internet, cable TV, a warm bed, and the possibility of escape or parole.

If you believe Option B is "much more cruel," you should seek help for your delusions.

So where did LA Hombre say anything about all those fringe benefits? He was talking about letting him rot in a hole, not letting him rot in front of a TV.

So where did LA Hombre say anything about all those fringe benefits? He was talking about letting him rot in a hole, not letting him rot in front of a TV.

But everyone knows we don't do that is the U.S., so it's completely moot.

Edit: So would our resident liberals support imprisonment for capital murderers where they do hard physical labor 12 hours a day, 6 days a week?

Well, we've learned one thing from Joe: He'd rather rot in a hole until he starved to death or the worms ate him alive than to get it all over with a pull of the switch or a lethal injection. I guess that's supposed to represent some sort of anti-leftist philosophy, though I have to wonder what chapter of Atlas Shrugged it came from.

Yes, American prisons are so cruel and atrocious that the recidivism rate is upwards of 70 percent.

Unfortunately, convicted murderers don't "rot in a hole." They get three square meals, a warm bed, cable TV, and a long list of other amenities.

***

As much as Joe grates on me with his tone,

Hey, we'll see about your tone after you've spent a few years in these politics threads! Ha ha.

Yes, American prisons are so cruel and atrocious that the recidivism rate is upwards of 70 percent.

Wait, Joe. Are you trying to say that recidivist criminals don't mind going back to jail?

Because if you are, that's about as batshit a statement as I've ever heard.

On the Texas plant explosion, its not clear to me that even had the plant owners had followed the law in question and reported the qty of explosive material that anyone would still be alive today.

The alleged failure to file a report with Homeland Security -- much noted here -- isn't a safety violation - the reporting was part of the effort to prevent the Timothy McVeighs, al-Qaeda types, and other terrorists from making fertilizer bombs, according to published reports. I'll defer to someone with actual expertise, but wouldn't EPA and OSHA be the agencies with safety responsibilities?

In what version of the current national security picture is a legal immigrant (muslim no less!!) that returns to his homeland, becomes radicalized, then returns (legally) to commit an act of terror. Jumping to that conclusion premature, sure, but it sure looks like thats where the crumbs are leading. Thats pretty much exactly the type of terrorist the republicans are afraid of. I dont know why its got to be republicans, isnt that exactly the kind of terrorist we all ought to be afraid of?

Sure. But what's the next step? Cracking down on Chechyans immigrants? Tightening up the Mexican border? Instigate ethnic profiling on Muslim citizens? You tell us how to generalize from this case.

----------------------------------------------------------

So where did LA Hombre say anything about all those fringe benefits? He was talking about letting him rot in a hole, not letting him rot in front of a TV.

But everyone knows we don't do that is the U.S., so it's completely moot.

I wasn't aware that we were only allowed to propose punishments that are provided for by the law. Personally I wouldn't mind a bit if the state fried this ############ after a fair trial, but the idea of pitching him in some Okefenokee alligator swamp would suit me just as well.

Edit: So would our resident liberals support imprisonment for capital murderers where they do hard physical labor 12 hours a day, 6 days a week?

Wouldn't bother me a bit. So what does that make me?

Daily Mirror is reporting:

Boston bombers: FBI hunting 12-strong terrorist “sleeper cell” linked to brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Wait, Joe. Are you trying to say that recidivist criminals don't mind going back to jail?
Because if you are, that's about as batshit a statement as I've ever heard.

There are a certain amount of studies as well as ample anecdotal evidence that has shown certain criminals do commit crimes to get back into jail as it's the only place they know what the hell is going on, or how to live.

NOTE - this is not the same as saying that criminals are going back because they love the cable TV. Some are going back - purposefully - because they know no other life and are unable to adjust, at all.

Edit: So would our resident liberals support imprisonment for capital murderers where they do hard physical labor 12 hours a day, 6 days a week?

Why only six days a week?

I wasn't aware that we were only allowed to propose punishments that are provided for by the law. Personally I wouldn't mind a bit if the state fried this ############ after a fair trial, but the idea of pitching him in some Okefenokee alligator swamp would suit me just as well.


I'm working in the realms of possibility. If life-imprisonment for capital murder meant "breaking rocks in the hot sun" 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for the next 60 years, I might be OK with life-imprisonment as a punishment.

Why only six days a week?

Ok, seven if you insist.

- Option B: The potential to live until old age while provided with meals, internet, cable TV, a warm bed, and the possibility of escape or even parole or clemency.

If you believe Option B is "much more cruel," you should seek help for your delusions.

Yeah, right.

If life-imprisonment meant "breaking rocks in the hot sun" 12 hours a day. 6 days a week for the next 60 years, I might be OK with life-imprisonment as a punishment.

Your preference of returning to the world portrayed by DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" is noted.

What bothers me is people saying it is wrong to mete out justice to murderers.

Murder for murder isn't justice.

Edit:

Edit: So would our resident liberals support imprisonment for capital murderers where they do hard physical labor 12 hours a day, 6 days a week?

No. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not revenge. Again, we can look to other countries to see how we could improve ourselves.

So where did LA Hombre say anything about all those fringe benefits? He was talking about letting him rot in a hole, not letting him rot in front of a TV.

But everyone knows we don't do that is the U.S., so it's completely moot.

Yeah, right.

Your preference of returning to the world portrayed by DeMille "The Ten Commandments" is noted.

You're right, air conditioning, weightlifting, basketball and cable-TV are much more appropriate for convicted murderers.

No. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not revenge. Again, we can look to other countries to see how we could improve ourselves.

That makes sense for burglars and car thieves.

For terrorists, it's absolutely insane.

Wait, Joe. Are you trying to say that recidivist criminals don't mind going back to jail?

I didn't say they "don't mind" going back to prison, but they're obviously not afraid of it. If prison was so incredibly awful, the recidivism rate would be about 90 percent lower, with criminals killing themselves rather than go back.

Because if you are, that's about as batshit a statement as I've ever heard.

After the week you've had at BBTF, you might want to be careful about making such statements.

You're right, air conditioning, weightlifting, basketball and cable-TV are much more appropriate for convicted murderers.

We've been through this in every damned thread. Distaste for one extreme does not equal support for the opposite extreme. Please leave 8th-grade debate class, you get an F.

Edit: So would our resident liberals support imprisonment for capital murderers where they do hard physical labor 12 hours a day, 6 days a week?

Wouldn't bother me a bit. So what does that make me?

A sane liberal?

We've been through this in every damned thread. Distaste for one extreme does not equal support for the opposite extreme. Please leave 8th-grade debate class, you get an F.

There is no hard labor prison in the US. In the worst case scenario they get a heated, air-conditioned cell, an hour a day exercise, and access to ample reading material.

Let's live in the world we live in, not your ideal state.

Wouldn't bother me a bit. So what does that make me?

Doesn't matter. You're still a Yankees fan & as such are far beyond redemption.

In what version of the current national security picture is a legal immigrant (muslim no less!!) that returns to his homeland, becomes radicalized, then returns (legally) to commit an act of terror. Jumping to that conclusion premature, sure, but it sure looks like thats where the crumbs are leading. Thats pretty much exactly the type of terrorist the republicans are afraid of. I dont know why its got to be republicans, isnt that exactly the kind of terrorist we all ought to be afraid of?

Sure. But what's the next step? Cracking down on Chechyans immigrants? Tightening up the Mexican border? Instigate ethnic profiling on Muslim citizens? You tell us how to generalize from this case.

You might be missing the point, which is my fault. But the original point was that what happened in Boston fits in quite well with preconceived notions about domestic terrorism.

But I'll answer your questions anyways.....The next step is FEAR. Everyone be afraid and double the size of the military to go after recruitment centers, double the size of homeland security and expand their powers to tap phones and run surveillance, allow the CIA to blanket our skies in drones 24/7. Those the the talking points that get attributed to republicans.

double the size of homeland security and expand their powers to tap phones and run surveillance, allow the CIA to blanket our skies in drones 24/7.

As a conservative, this is batshit insane. Any Republican who wants to give the Federal Gov't more power domestically is an ass.

Distaste for one extreme does not equal support for the opposite extreme.

This is my problem with the death-as-justice belief. It renders any argument short of death, no matter how reasoned, as being short of justice. Death through the power of the state is an exercise of power, not justice.

If prison was so incredibly awful, the recidivism rate would be about 90 percent lower, with criminals killing themselves rather than go back.

I really, really doubt this is true.

Where did you get that number 90%, BTW? From American Spectator? The Weekly Standard? Pravda? Just make it up?

And there's that Cruel and Unusual constitutional bugaboo that prevents jailtime from being so onerous that criminals would kill themselves en masse rather than endure it. Even Auschwitz didn't have a 90% suicide rate.

In the worst case scenario they get a heated, air-conditioned cell, an hour a day exercise, and access to ample reading material.

"ADX Florence is a 37-acre (15 ha), 490-bed complex at 5880 Highway 67, Florence, Colorado, about 100 miles (160 km) south of Denver and 40 miles (64 km) south of Colorado Springs.[13] It is one part of the Florence Federal Correctional Complex (FFCC), which comprises three correctional facilities, each with a different security rating.[14]

The majority of the facility is above ground. The only part that is underground is a subterranean corridor that links cellblocks to the lobby. Each cell has a desk, a stool, and a bed, which are almost entirely made out of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous trap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light, a radio, and a black and white television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming.[15]

The 4 in (10 cm) by 4 ft (120 cm) windows are designed to prevent inmates from knowing their specific location within the complex because they can see only the sky and roof through them, making it virtually impossible to plan an escape. Inmates exercise in a concrete pit resembling an empty swimming pool, also designed to prevent them from knowing their location in the facility.[16] Telecommunication with the outside world is forbidden, and food is hand-delivered by correction officers. However, inmates sent here from other prisons can potentially be allowed to eat in a shared dining room.[5]

The prison as a whole contains a multitude of motion detectors and cameras, and 1,400 remote-controlled steel doors. Pressure pads and twelve-foot-tall (3.7 m) razor wire fences surround the perimeter.

Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber, stated in a series of 2006 letters to a Colorado Springs newspaper that the ADX is meant to "inflict misery and pain."[17] Charles Harrelson, who was sent to ADX after a failed attempt to escape from a Georgia prison, said: "Part of the plan here is sensory deprivation...It could be infinitely worse."[16] A former ADX warden described the place as "a cleaner version of Hell".[18] As of 2007, there have been hundreds of "involuntary feedings" and four suicides.[18] In June 2009 Richard Reid, commonly known as the "shoe bomber," went on a hunger strike and was force-fed.[19] Nonetheless, the prison has come under far less scorn than comparable facilities at the state level. Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch said after a tour of the facility, "The Bureau of Prisons has taken a harsh punitive model and implemented it as well as anybody I know."

Sounds like a real club Med. Let's make no mistake, this guy Will be going here. Whether it's for 6 years or life, he will, and should die here. I'm fine with the latter. He's not going to be playing basketball, surfing the web, or watching on-demand movies.

For those not keeping up, we don't kill even the most callous, vicious murderers we have safely in custody because it makes us less.

Not killing is--among other things--an exercise in mercy, even where it seems none is warranted or merited. It's important to show mercy exactly where it's the most difficult to do so. The act itself has value. It's a means to being better than our baser instincts are calling on us to be. It's a small step in the direction we'd like society to take. It allows us to take the moral high ground wrt other revenge killings and "honor" killings.

That's really all executions are: state-run revenge killings.

For those not keeping up, we don't kill even the most callous, vicious murderers we have safely in custody because it makes us less.

Not killing is--among other things--an exercise in mercy, even where it seems none is warranted or merited. It's important to show mercy exactly where it's the most difficult to do so. The act itself has value. It's a means to being better than our baser instincts are calling on us to be. It's a small step in the direction we'd like society to take. It allows us to take the moral high ground wrt other revenge killings and "honor" killings.

That's really all executions are: state-run revenge killings.

Sounds like a real club Med. Let's make no mistake, this guy Will be going here. Whether it's for 6 years or life, he will, and should die here. I'm fine with the latter. He's not going to be playing basketball, surfing the web, or watching on-demand movies.

So, if this place is so horrific, why is it not more just to simply execute him?

I don't want to see him suffer. I don't want to see him in Hell; if he repents before he dies, I'll be happy.

Not killing is--among other things--an exercise in mercy, even where it seems none is warranted or merited. It's important to show mercy exactly where it's the most difficult to do so. The act itself has value. It's a means to being better than our baser instincts are calling on us to be. It's a small step in the direction we'd like society to take. It allows us to take the moral high ground wrt other revenge killings and "honor" killings.

That's really all executions are: state-run revenge killings.

No, you only display your ignorance.

The state, by claiming a monopoly on justice, restrains revenge killings, honor killings, etc. As long as the state exacts appropriate justice, no individual, family or group can claim the right to vengeance.

When the state fails to assess justice, it opens the door to the evils of revenge and vendetta.

double the size of homeland security and expand their powers to tap phones and run surveillance, allow the CIA to blanket our skies in drones 24/7.

As a conservative, this is batshit insane. Any Republican who wants to give the Federal Gov't more power domestically is an ass.

I agree all those mentioned in the article are asses. But it took me literally 10 seconds on google:
link

I agree all those mentioned in the article are asses. But it took me literally 10 seconds on google:
link]link[/url]

bad link.

I don't doubt what you say, however.

On the Texas plant explosion, its not clear to me that even had the plant owners had followed the law in question and reported the qty of explosive material that anyone would still be alive today.

I don't know if it applies here, what with it's being Texas and all, but one reason for reporting that kind of material is to ensure that a higher level and number of inspections are made: That the chemicals are carefully tracked, that they're properly stored, that they're separated from chemicals they can dangerously interact with...

I can't even paint my portable propane tank on the grounds that might conceal rust. My local convenience store is required to keep an inventory of the propane it sells because the stuff from time to time explodes. I can't imagine the only reason a company is required to report ammonium nitrate on the premises is because terrorists might want it.

You're right, air conditioning, weightlifting, basketball and cable-TV are much more appropriate for convicted murderers.

We've been through this in every damned thread. Distaste for one extreme does not equal support for the opposite extreme. Please leave 8th-grade debate class, you get an F.

I've long given up on the possibility that this is rhetorical strategizing on his part. It's one more symptom of the either/or thinking that plagues him. He wouldn't understand any other way of framing the issue.

That's really all executions are: state-run revenge killings.

This is a matter of personal morality for you. Everyone should respect that, but you also have to be comfortable with others not sharing your views.

When the state fails to assess justice, it opens the door to the evils of revenge and vendetta.

And again, this is only true in your mind because you define justice as death.

When the state fails to assess justice, it opens the door to the evils of revenge and vendetta.

I think most families don't feel cheated when the life-in-prison w/out parole verdict comes down.

This is not to say that I'm against the death penalty. I understand both sides of the argument have merit.

Any Republican who wants to give the Federal Gov't more power domestically is an ass.

And yet, the number of Republicans who want in many areas to give the Federal government more power domestically approaches 100%.

Other than in the category of "eliminating government oversight that in any way decreases the ability to maximize profit (not wages, profit)", Republicans seem to have no interest whatever in reducing government. They don't even broadly favor freedom from government involvement in economic matters.

I don't know if it applies here, what with it's being Texas and all, but one reason for reporting that kind of material is to ensure that a higher level and number of inspections are made: That the chemicals are carefully tracked, that they're properly stored, that they're separated from chemicals they can dangerously interact with...

I can't even paint my portable propane tan on the grounds that might conceal rust. I can't imagine the only reason a company is required to report ammonium nitrate on the premises is because terrorists might want it.

Again, I dont think anyone here knows enough to say, but so far, the only negligence I've seen mentioned is something that probablly doesnt affect plant safety. I dont know enough about the reporting law, but its hard to believe homeland security is going have ensuring plant safety under its umbrella.

Its early, I'm sure there is time and they'll be more to come.

Unfortunately, convicted murderers don't "rot in a hole." They get three square meals, a warm bed, cable TV, and a long list of other amenities.

Wisconsin lost a lawsuit ~10 years ago over conditions like this:

Prisoners were on permanent lockdown in tiny cells, with a light that shone at full brightness 24 hours a day. They were prohibited from using their blankets to cover their eyes at night. Their three hours of weekly out-of-cell time were spent alone in a cement room without so much as a tennis ball. The only human interaction came when guards dropped off meal trays.

Cell temperatures have climbed into the triple digits during summer. Inmates were required to sleep with their heads toward their toilets, which flushed intermittently and often backed up. Clocks were prohibited, so inmates lost all sense of time. Even guards weren't allowed to wear watches.

Part of the settlement was to construct "an outdoor recreation area and air conditioning." The state didn't want to do the latter (despite agreeing to it) "because it would be the only air-conditioned prison in the system."

Link

This is a matter of personal morality for you. Everyone should respect that, but you also have to be comfortable with others not sharing your views.

Describing it as a "state run revenge killing" is a matter of definition, rather than an issue of personal morality (which instead is whether I favor or oppose--the latter, if it wasn't clear). There's no compelling reason to kill people safely in custody. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't save money (which is all but irrelevant)... what theory of justice does state-run revenge killing serve?

As to your other point, I have no idea why I'm required to be 'comfortable' with others not sharing my views on this subject, but that's probably an entirely different discussion.

edit: "I dont know enough about the reporting law, but its hard to believe homeland security is going have ensuring plant safety under its umbrella."

I was talking about the broader issue of reporting chemicals; not specifically reporting them to homeland (can we please get rid of that ridiculous word?) security. Two distinct issues, in that one has to do with security from people attempting to detonate or illegally acquire those chemicals, the other to do with safety independently of persons bent on harm or mischief.

#4640. Thanks. Fascinating stuff.

Describing it as a "state run revenge killing" is a matter of definition, rather than an issue of personal morality (which instead is whether I favor or oppose--the latter, if it wasn't clear). There's no compelling reason to kill people safely in custody. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't save money (which is all but irrelevant)... what theory of justice does state-run revenge killing serve?

How about....the theory of justice that makes it a prescribed method of justice in the United States?

How about....the theory of justice that those who might disagree with you on moral grounds are perfectly comfortable with?

You oppose it morally. You fail to understand that others do not share your morals no matter how much you try to talk over them. A lot of poeple do feel there is a compelling reason to kill people safely in custody. I'm not even sure I'm one of them, but you are miserably stubborn.

This is not to say that I'm against the death penalty. I understand both sides of the argument have merit.

There is no merit to the argument for the death penalty.

I was talking about the broader issue of reporting chemicals; not specifically reporting them to homeland (can we please get rid of that ridiculous word?) security. Two distinct issues, in that one has to do with security from people attempting to detonate or illegally acquire those chemicals, the other to do with safety independently of persons bent on harm or mischief.

Yes, and like I said, I'm not sure any negligence has been uncovered in the safety areas. I think its incredibly likely that there was negligence, but unfortunately I think its going to be hard to prove.

I really, really doubt this is true.

Where did you get that number 90%, BTW? From American Spectator? The Weekly Standard? Pravda? Just make it up?

I didn't quote any statistics in #4619, so it's unclear what you're complaining about.

And there's that Cruel and Unusual constitutional bugaboo that prevents jailtime from being so onerous that criminals would kill themselves en masse rather than endure it. Even Auschwitz didn't have a 90% suicide rate.

The Auschwitz bit seems to prove my point that most people prefer life over death, even in the most horrendous of conditions.

***

There is no merit to the argument for the death penalty.

I guess that ends the debate then. What should we discuss next?

Whats the over-under on number of times Godwin's law has been invoked in this thread??

I didn't quote any statistics in #4619, so it's unclear what you're complaining about.

OK, since you seem to be suffering from early stage Alzheimer's, I'll quote yourself to you again:

If prison was so incredibly awful, the recidivism rate would be about 90 percent lower, with criminals killing themselves rather than go back.

There. Now, where did you get the 90%?

Unsurprisingly I am against the death penalty. Killing is wrong, except in rare circumstances like self defense. And those are not existent here. It is vengeance, and a very human emotion, but still wrong.

I am also against making the imprisoned for life miserable. Inflicting harm on others does not help anyone, it merely inflicts harm.

Rehabilitate where you can and keep safely away from innocents where you can't.

And yes I realize I am in the minority in this opinion, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. I have never cheered the death of anyone, and I don't plan on starting now. Someday "stone age justice" won't be practiced.

Regarding the explosion in Texas, I think it is only garden variety hypocrisy and so worth mentioning, but not worth getting all worked up about. And I think we should wait to find out more before lynching the plant owners, but once we know more ... (And no I don't mean literal lynching).

How about....the theory of justice that makes it a prescribed method of justice in the United States?

That's not a theory of justice.

You fail to understand that others do not share your morals no matter how much you try to talk over them.

You haven't begun a discussion, much less set out terms, so how would you know what I 'fail to understand'? Further, how do you arrive at the idea that I 'talk over them'? Doesn't that require an actual conversation?

Don't take this the wrong way, but I have no idea who you are, what you believe or, frankly, what you're on about. I suspect you and I are unlikely to engage productively, fwiw.

@4649--good points, BM, on the death penalty. Regarding the explosion in Texas, I think it's fair to have a conversation wrt safety, indifference, and so on using that as a starting point. Establishing the guilt or innocence of the particular owners isn't necessary to having an overdue discussion on depraved indifference, among other things.

OK, since you seem to be suffering from early stage Alzheimer's, I'll quote yourself to you again:

If prison was so incredibly awful, the recidivism rate would be about 90 percent lower, with criminals killing themselves rather than go back.


There. Now, where did you get the 90%?

You're exhibiting some poor reading comprehension skills here, as there's still no statistic in that quote. Opining that "the recidivism rate would be about 90 percent lower" isn't the same thing as saying the recidivism rate is 90 percent.

You can find a variety of recidivism rates here. As I said earlier in the thread, the percentages tend to be in the 70s.

And there's that Cruel and Unusual constitutional bugaboo that prevents jailtime from being so onerous that criminals would kill themselves en masse rather than endure it. Even Auschwitz didn't have a 90% suicide rate.

The Auschwitz bit seems to prove my point that most people prefer life over death, even in the most horrendous of conditions.

That may or not be true---it probably is in almost all cases where there's no debilitating injury, illness, or depression---but with death camp prisoners there was at least a ray of hope for eventual rescue and freedom if one could only stay alive. There's no similar incentive for life without parole prisoners, so the two situations aren't really comparable.

Are you really this dumb? There's no statistic in that quote. Saying "the recidivism rate would be about 90 percent lower" isn't the same thing as saying the recidivism rate is 90 percent.

sta·tis·tic [stuh-tis-tik] Show IPA
noun Statistics.
a numerical fact or datum, especially one computed from a sample.

You heard it here first. 90% is not a numerical fact or datum, it is Joe K talking out of where he sits and so is immune to needed any sort of support (other than a chair).

sta·tis·tic [stuh-tis-tik] Show IPA
noun Statistics.
a numerical fact or datum, especially one computed from a sample.

You heard it here first. 90% is not a numerical fact or datum, it is Joe K talking out of where he sits and so is immune to needed any sort of support (other than a chair).

This is getting idiotic. Show me the "numerical fact or datum" in #4619. I offered an opinion that the recidivism rate would be lower if prison conditions were as harsh as alleged.

I know a guy on this site who has something like eight posters on ignore. I said, "Joe K posts under that many aliases?"

Kidding. I really said, "that many?" He said, "I take the same approach as I would at a cocktail party. If I passed those guys in someone's living room I'd say hi, but they don't have anything that interests me, so why even bother being distracted? There are a couple hundred posters I might get something out of listening to and exchanging with, but I know the signal to noise with those eight approaches zero. Life's too short."

There was a pause, then he said, "The real question is, why don't YOU have more people on ignore? Do you talk to absolutely everyone in the bar that wants to yammer at you about [Jesus, creepy politics, doomsday scenarios]?"

That may or not be true---it probably is in almost all cases where there's no debilitating injury, illness, or depression---but with death camp prisoners there was at least a ray of hope for eventual rescue and freedom if one could only stay alive. There's no similar incentive for life without parole prisoners, so the two situations aren't really comparable.

Of course there is. If prisoners on death row can have their sentences commuted to life, then prisoners serving life can have their sentences commuted via clemency, or a future appeal, etc.

We already have people arguing that life without parole is "cruel and unusual." All it takes is one governor to buy into it.

***

On another topic, #4655 is kind of funny. How many times has "Jack Carter" a.k.a. "something other" reinvented himself on this site? He's about due for another new screen name/personality. I didn't think he'd make it out of the recent men's-rights and rape threads without getting banned, but he surprised me.

You haven't begun a discussion, much less set out terms, so how would you know what I 'fail to understand'? Further, how do you arrive at the idea that I 'talk over them'? Doesn't that require an actual conversation?

Don't take this the wrong way, but I have no idea who you are, what you believe or, frankly, what you're on about. I suspect you and I are unlikely to engage productively, fwiw.

Reading back I prob unfairly attributed someone elses comments to you. I have a thorn in my side about people who are unable to see both sides of issues that very clearly have two sides. My apologies.

Probablly agree on the last point though.

What, practically, is gained by killing this kid? (I get Snapper's revenge fantasy bit, so we don't have to go over that again.)

What, practically, is gained by imprisoning this adult for life?

What, practically, is gained by imprisoning this adult for life?

Removal from society, as needs require.

Killing him would certainly achieve those ends.

What, practically, is gained by killing this kid? (I get Snapper's revenge fantasy bit, so we don't have to go over that again.)

organ donations.

Some crimes are so offensive that society imposes the ultimate punishment.

If you have two options that achieve the desired ends, you should go with the option that cedes the least power possible to the state. There's nothing gained by killing this boy.

There was a pause, then he said, "The real question is, why don't YOU have more people on ignore? Do you talk to absolutely everyone in the bar that wants to yammer at you about [Jesus, creepy politics, doomsday scenarios]?"

You don't need to put someone on ignore to ignore them given the nature of online (forum style) interaction.

The state, by claiming a monopoly on justice,

The word you were looking for is violence. Surprising claim or a Catholic to make.

Justice can be found beyond an eye for an eye.

People always seem to equate "eye for an eye" with some kind of barbaric outlook.

Actually, it was a progressive statement. It meant, not more punishment than the harm that was committed. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and not more.

As for this 19 year old waste of flesh -- he is an object lesson. The police need more and better training in marksmanship. They really need to be better in hitting the target.

Well, he's still in serious condition. We can always hope he'll take a turn for the worst.

"Nothing will be gained from killing this boy." Nothing will be lost, either.

My thoughts on the death penalty are pretty simple: One can have committed crimes heinous enough, or be irredeemable enough that the death penalty is called for. I am for it in theory.

However, human beings have shown quite completely they are absolutely incapable of exercising such responsibility, so there is no way in this century or any of the ensuing four or five that one can be in favor of it in practice.

I used to agree with people who would say that the death penalty has no place in civilized society, but I think it is more accurate to say that there is no society currently civilized or advanced enough to utilize the death penalty.

If you have two options that achieve the desired ends, you should go with the option that cedes the least power possible to the state. There's nothing gained by killing this boy.

oh, and also, if something is inevitable, you might as well make it immediate. if he's going to die in prison anyway, how much does it really matter when, why or how it happens?

If you have two options that achieve the desired ends, you should go with the option that cedes the least power possible to the state. There's nothing gained by killing this boy.

Lessons in morality from one whose posts are filled with gratuitous threats of violence? Pretty funny.

No a/c in Texas prisons except special areas like education centers with contract personnel and (I assume) the clinic. Been onsite and know it damn well. Good try to, Snaps.

Irrespective of the Boston case...
Ever been in a prison? They're pretty ####### terrible.
If you think prisons are so great that people will want to return - maybe the answer is to make the rest of the world better, rather than prisons worse.

***

BM/4649 - that's close to my stance as well

What, practically, is gained by imprisoning this adult for life?

I'm not a Buddhist, but my parents are, and there's a lot I take from that philosophy. With respect to capital punishment, it's not so much what is gained but what is not lost. The true enemy of humanity is our own tendency towards selfishness and violence. The boy is captured, so we don't have to exercise lethal force to protect ourselves from him. If he dies now, it will not be because he has to die, but because we selfishly want him to. To give in to that desire for violence fosters the desire for more violence within ourselves.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and not more.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

organ donations

Of course, if the state actually did gain something from killing convicted murderers, that might be problematic too.

I used to agree with people who would say that the death penalty has no place in civilized society, but I think it is more accurate to say that there is no society currently civilized or advanced enough to utilize the death penalty.

I don't care about the death penalty debate, but I think our society is certainly civilized enough to put to death a man who had a big hand in killing 4 people and maiming dozens and injuring 170. WTF, Lassus? What kind of silly argument are you resorting to here?

But intent is a major element in many crimes.

Many but not all.

Do you sometimes post without reading what you're responding to?

The true enemy of humanity is our own tendency towards selfishness and violence.

Yup. Further, by taking the power of killing away from the state in these instances, we also remove the possibility--actually, the inevitability--of error. By doing so we may also remove the satisfying aspect of vengeance, but when it comes to the ultimate punishment, it's worthwhile to do so.

Texas is the worst offender, but they're not the only state that has reduced the murder of captives by the state to complete farce, without meaningful check or oversight.

Actually, it is immoral to support the death penalty when we know it means continuing to allow Texas to execute the way it does.

There was a pause, then he said, "The real question is, why don't YOU have more people on ignore? Do you talk to absolutely everyone in the bar that wants to yammer at you about [Jesus, creepy politics, doomsday scenarios]?"

You don't need to put someone on ignore to ignore them given the nature of online (forum style) interaction.

Sure, but I imagine it makes the experience smoother, like not having to listen to the rattle from across the room

Not you, but I don't get some who think putting people on Ignore is some big deal. It just streamlines commenting, apparently.

I don't want to see him suffer.

Not even a little? Hundreds of people, victims and their loved ones, are suffering because of him. A little suffering would look very good on him. Here's hoping they are shorting him on the morphine at the hospital -- wouldn't want to take a chance on him becoming an addict, now, would we?

I don't want to see him in Hell;

Well, given that, in order to see him in Hell, you would be putting in an appearance yourself . . .

This is a matter of personal morality for you. Everyone should respect that, but you also have to be comfortable with others not sharing your views.

If everyone felt that, it would be the end of the internet as we know it. Besides, the liberal manifesto does not concede that there are any other valid viewpoints.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

A bullshit aphorism, unless you assume that everyone is constantly doing things to deserve punishment. You might as well say "in the land of the blind,the one-eyed man is king". It would make as much sense.

Also, all of the bleeding hearts out there -- so if, in 5 years, dear little Dzohar wakes up and is truly sorry about what he did, and will never do it again, you are fine with letting him out and having a full, healthy life, as opposed to what happened to his victims. After all, since he's rehabilitated, why shouldn't he walk free?

And then, if he becomes radicalized again, well, who could have seen that coming?

For some crimes, and some people, there is no redemption.

Further, by taking the power of killing away from the state in these instances, we also remove the possibility--actually, the inevitability--of error.

One can argue about the limits of capital punishment, but the "worst of the worst" where there is no possibility of error is a subset that has broad support. We'll have to see what is actually shown at trial, but this case gives every indication of having a mountain of evidence that will remove all doubt of Tsarnaev's culpability. He shouldn't benefit from hypothetical "errors" that might occur in other cases when they aren't applicable to his case.

There are a few circumstances where I can't get around the option of the death penalty. For instance, I'm not sure what else you could do with someone who made sport of killing prison guards, or someone who killed an innocent to spring someone else from prison.

A bullshit aphorism, unless you assume that everyone is constantly doing things to deserve punishment.

According to some world views, we're born deserving punishment. But going back to your original statement, is "no more, no less" realistic? If someone tortures but does not kill, should we torture but not kill him? If someone rapes, should we rape them?

I don't want society to try to get even with them by matching them. We don't need to be monsters to fight monsters.

Also, all of the bleeding hearts out there -- so if, in 5 years, dear little Dzohar wakes up and is truly sorry about what he did, and will never do it again, you are fine with letting him out and having a full, healthy life, as opposed to what happened to his victims. After all, since he's rehabilitated, why shouldn't he walk free?

Because even if he recants his past, he can't change it. He can settle with his own demons in the space he's earned through his crimes, but he cannot settle with the rest of the world. The reason why his crime is so horrific — he has taken human lives — is the same reason why we should not do what he did. We don't have to kill him. If we do kill him, it will be because we want to, not because we need to.

Further, by taking the power of killing away from the state in these instances, we also remove the possibility--actually, the inevitability--of error.

One can argue about the limits of capital punishment, but the "worst of the worst" where there is no possibility of error is a subset that has broad support. We'll have to see what is actually shown at trial, but this case gives every indication of having a mountain of evidence that will remove all doubt of Tsarnaev's culpability. He shouldn't benefit from hypothetical "errors" that might occur in other cases when they aren't applicable to his case.

Problem with your (and mine, in this case) 'worst of the worst' is that it's in no way a distinction that survives any practical test. Texas and its governors regularly claim that every worthwhile measure is taken to ensure only the truly guilty are punished. They were so asserting in the middle of what was obviously complete farce.

The death penalty is just too important to be administered by people.

edit: man, High Noon just came off my Top 100 list. The music is an unpleasant ninety minute exercise in how many ####### variations you can think of for "Do Not Forsake Me O My Darlin", which isn't a particularly enjoyable melody the first time through.

The death penalty is just too important to be administered by people.

Would you prefer some kind of robot?

As long as it combines the algorithmic wisdom of George W. Bush and James Richard Perry, I'm jiggy.

Hell, I think convicted felons should be able to vote from jail.

The death penalty is easy to oppose in practice because its application is so arbitrary, unequal, and error-prone. In principle, where its application was none of those things, it is a more difficult question but one where I still come down on the anti-capital punishment side. Bitter Mouse makes some good points although I would add that punishment can also be justified on the grounds of deterring would-be criminals, even if it has no rehabilitative effect on the punished and is unnecessary to keep them from preventing further harm. However, that punishment should not be "cruel" and it should actually function as an effective deterrent.

I don't like the death penalty in large part because I'm not a fan of saying that anyone's life is completely irredeemable. We have all made mistakes in our lives, and many of us have gotten a second chance at some point. Is it inconceivable to me that a young murderer could, over the next 50+ years he would likely spend in prison, atone for his crimes, become a better person and earn the chance to make some positive contribution to the world, however small? Wouldn't it represent something good in us to give him the opportunity to earn that chance?

Tsarnaev took part in especially heinous crimes, but he is also only 19 years old. At the very least I'd like to see the evidence presented by both sides before I came to a conclusion either way. I'm not going to speculate about what might or might not change my opinion of him, but I do find it a perfect example of the troubling nature of the death penalty that those who support it here have already tried and sentenced the guy before he has even been assigned a lawyer.

Also, all of the bleeding hearts out there -- so if, in 5 years, dear little Dzohar wakes up and is truly sorry about what he did, and will never do it again, you are fine with letting him out and having a full, healthy life, as opposed to what happened to his victims. After all, since he's rehabilitated, why shouldn't he walk free?

It's a nice gotcha, and I guess I would ask you how you would answer the question. If you know he's rehabilitated, why shouldn't he walk free?

And then, if he becomes radicalized again, well, who could have seen that coming?

If you think he's a relatively high likelihood to "become radicalized"* again, well then you've answered your own question.

* an unfortunate turn of phrase that seems to have grown in popularity during this episode, at least on CNN. The intransitive verb implies that one only becomes a radical through the agency of others, and not on one's own.

...although I would add that punishment can also be justified on the grounds of deterring would-be criminals,...

If by punishment here you mean the death penalty, please point to a study that shows its deterrent effect.

Fwiw, the argument is typically backwards. The death penalty is soft. How much courage does it take, really, to kill someone completely at your mercy?

The death penalty is just too important to be administered by people.


Would you prefer some kind of robot?

I'd be happy to volunteer for the job here.

I'd be happy to volunteer for the job here.

Credit where it is due--well-played.

If by punishment here you mean the death penalty, please point to a study that shows its deterrent effect.

There are some, but they are published in second tier journals. Most of the reputable people who do these kinds of studies for a living indicate there's just not enough data either way to know. If there's a deterrent effect, it's likely extremely small.

On an intuitive level, that makes a plausible amount of sense. Generally speaking, the circumstances of most murders don't involve the murderer sitting down and making a rational decision about the pros and cons.

If by punishment here you mean the death penalty, please point to a study that shows its deterrent effect.

No, I just mean punishment of any sort. Bitter Mouse mentioned rehabilitation and public safety as the two goals of punishment; I was adding a third.

Credit where it is due--well-played.

Indeed.

Bravo.

@4692: thanks for clarifying.

On an intuitive level, that makes a plausible amount of sense.

Sure, but then Jeter won some Gold Gloves. If I ever seriously think about killing, I guarantee you the thought of life in prison will have a much greater deterrent effect.

I'm also rethinking this whole Artificial Intelligence deal from a few recent threads. Googling the most basic questions gets nothing like conclusive answers. If we haven't even figured out the elementary structure of basic sentences, the only thing that's going to create real AI any time soon is some sort of Law of Accelerating Returns with cpus evolving cpus.

"nemours" safety laws (sorry, Greg),

No worries, that's what I get for posting after 12 beers.

Just to close the loop on the bet I described with my Scottish friend back in #3006, we talked today and decided that he won this one. We considered push as white guys from Chechnya would seem to be a pretty unlikely winning hand for him but Islam looks to be the dominant force here. Point for him. Despite this setback, I am unwavering in my support for homegrown, white, right-wing, douche bags as the biggest domestic threat. The recent run up in automatic gun purchases has been impressive, I expect these boys to do some truly horrific things in the coming years.

No worries, that's what I get for posting after 12 beers.

Pints? 330ml? 440ml?

Talk about tailoring ads to the subject at hand...

I've been infected with the dreaded Chitka virus. The popup reads,

Find death penalty here posted one even results here Fast and local!
www.yellowbook.com

I don't care about the death penalty debate, but I think our society is certainly civilized enough to put to death a man who had a big hand in killing 4 people and maiming dozens and injuring 170. WTF, Lassus? What kind of silly argument are you resorting to here?

More a belief than an argument, Ray.

When it has been proven time and time again that people you are really sure deserved the death penalty ended up not committing the crimes you said they did, you then lose the right to administer the death penalty to those you are really, really sure deserve the death penalty.

I think yeah, the problem with death penalty ends up being that you'll always get someone wrong, but morally speaking, is it really ok to say you'll never use that no matter what? it's a question I have no answer for, that at the moment I generally lean towards having a death penalty but be damn sure every convicted person gets his case reviewed beyond all doubt.

So, Lassus, you're for the death penalty, except that you're against it.

Okay.

The idea that we can't be 100% sure of guilt in many cases is silly. This is an example.