Random thought

BOP

Well-Known Member
ok.

Hey John McCain.

This nation was founded on religious freedom.

No it wasn't. Stop reading revisionist theocratic history.

It was founded primarily on commerce, but also on freedom from persecution for being such extremist nutballs in their beliefs that they were kicked out of every country in Europe at a time when countries in Europe were (and to a certain extent still are) very religiously oriented. As an example, several countries in Europe still assess their citizens a tax to go to the Church. The ones that don't assess a direct tax provide grants to the Church.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
I cannot recall the cases, in the past - however there have been people who have been unjustly convicted of a crime, only to have DNA evidence prove thay it clearly was not them, nor were they at the scene of the crime, when it supposedly occured.

It has been documented on cable news and - the Internet! :lol:

If it's on TV and the Internet, it must be true!

Try the Innocent Project; that's one of the main ones.

How many of those people who were convicted, but were innocent of that particular crime were absolutely innocent of any crimes in their lives? I'm sure it happens; we're dealing with human nature - and don't get me started on scumbag prosecutors who refuse to retract their convictions, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
But they almost certainly did something else or they wouldn't have been in a position to be accused of the crime. You don't get the death penalty for shoplifting or smoking pot - you get it for a violent crime. And typically you don't get convicted unless there is strong evidence. Then there's the appeal process and the long wait to actually be executed after you've been sentenced.

So, silly Hollywood movies aside, I don't believe anyone who was ever sentenced to death didn't deserve it.

Preach it,sister!

Speaking of movies, the one about Rubin "Hurricane" Carter is the one that comes immediately to mind. As the Wikipedia article says, either they let a twice-convicted triple murderer free, or they incarcerated an innocent man for 20 years.

But was he really innocent of any crime, prior to his conviction for murder? Let's look together:
"Carter grew up in Paterson, New Jersey, a middle son among seven children. His parents had a stable, long-lasting marriage, provided well for the family, and raised their other six children without significant problems. Only Rubin seems to have acquired a criminal record, one that resulted in his being sentenced to a juvenile reformatory for assault and robbery shortly after his 14th birthday. Carter escaped from reformatory in 1954 and joined the Army at age 17. A few months after completing infantry basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was sent to West Germany where he developed an interest in boxing. However, Carter was a poor soldier, and was court-martialed four times for charges ranging from insubordination to being AWOL. In May 1956, he was discharged as "Undesireable," well short of his scheduled date of separation. He had served 21 months of his three-year term of enlistment.

After his return to New Jersey, Carter was picked up by authorities and sentenced to an additional ten months for escaping from the reformatory. Shortly after being released, Carter was arrested for a series of street muggings, which included assault and robbery of a middle-aged black woman. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was imprisoned in Trenton State Prison, a maximum-security prison, where he would remain for the next four years."
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So...

Preach it,sister!

Speaking of movies, the one about Rubin "Hurricane" Carter is the one that comes immediately to mind. As the Wikipedia article says, either they let a twice-convicted triple murderer free, or they incarcerated an innocent man for 20 years.

But was he really innocent of any crime, prior to his conviction for murder? Let's look together:
"Carter grew up in Paterson, New Jersey, a middle son among seven children. His parents had a stable, long-lasting marriage, provided well for the family, and raised their other six children without significant problems. Only Rubin seems to have acquired a criminal record, one that resulted in his being sentenced to a juvenile reformatory for assault and robbery shortly after his 14th birthday. Carter escaped from reformatory in 1954 and joined the Army at age 17. A few months after completing infantry basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was sent to West Germany where he developed an interest in boxing. However, Carter was a poor soldier, and was court-martialed four times for charges ranging from insubordination to being AWOL. In May 1956, he was discharged as "Undesireable," well short of his scheduled date of separation. He had served 21 months of his three-year term of enlistment.
After his return to New Jersey, Carter was picked up by authorities and sentenced to an additional ten months for escaping from the reformatory. Shortly after being released, Carter was arrested for a series of street muggings, which included assault and robbery of a middle-aged black woman. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was imprisoned in Trenton State Prison, a maximum-security prison, where he would remain for the next four years."

...you're all happy and content with him going to jail for 20 years for a crime he didn't commit based on an assault and robbery at age 14 and being poor soldier, huh?

Some sense of justice you got there, pal.
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
From the Animal Liberation Front website

It is a decision that she lives with for the rest of her life, and nothing can be more painful than to kill a part of oneself. Abortion is murder. It must always be called murder. Although it immediately ends a pregnancy, it must not be called a pregnancy termination. It must be called what it is, and if that change in nomenclature occurs throughout our society, it might become a less common act than it is.

well I agree with this part .... NARL and their ilk have down everything possible to dumb down the Abortion Process ...

its a fetus not a child ... its only a little tissue ... :whistle:

However I don't beleive Animals are Sentient ... some maybe well trained, really clever ... but IMHO i beleive that they operate on instinct .... nothing more ....

:whistle:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Doesn't...

there have been several cases recently where convicts have been released, after spending yrs on death row, where DNA Evidence proved they were not the guilty party ....

Try watching this :

http://forums.somd.com/news-current...e-amount-ammo-get-free-visit.html#post3152367

...matter. They probably stole a car with their buddies when they were 14 or spit on sidewalks or stole $5 from the cookie box at work. Who cares if they mended their ways and became good citizens? Burn them!

:torchandpitchfork:
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
That's a pretty bold statement considering there are, at least, 16 known cases of people who were sentenced to death and were later proven innocent by DNA testing. I'm in favor of the death penalty but let's get it right.

16 whole people out of 330 Million? Whatever are the other 99.99 percent of us going to do!!!

Theoretically, every human life has value (Jesus certainly seemed to think so).

That's not bad odds. I'd say that points to the fact that despite too many travesties and miscarriages of justice; the 75 percent recidivism rate in this country; the fact that criminal street gangs actually do a more effective job at running their illegal activities from within prison walls, the justice system actually does a pretty good job at convicting the guilty and absolving the innocent.

But, like any good lib, you take 16 wrongful convictions and turn it into some kind of post-apocalyptic nightmare of big brotherism and the police state run wild.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
What the heck was...

But, like any good lib, you take 16 wrongful convictions and turn it into some kind of post-apocalyptic nightmare of big brotherism and the police state run wild.

...that for??? He made a perfectly rational statement;

That's a pretty bold statement considering there are, at least, 16 known cases of people who were sentenced to death and were later proven innocent by DNA testing. I'm in favor of the death penalty but let's get it right.


How does that, in any way, justify your reaction?
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
...absurd. There is no rational for punishing the innocent, ever. The issue that needs attention is all the stuff the person got away with before and why. Are we punishing effectively enough? Are we holding people appropriately responsible to begin with? That's where the problem lies.

If we address that, we don't have to resort to the argument 'that they'd done it before, so who cares if they're innocent this time' because there won't be someone with a dozen felonies still walking the streets to begin with.

Fixing the system is better than unconscionable band aids.

You misunderstood me. If a person is accused, tried and convicted of murder, and subsequently sentenced, the mitigating factor for the death penalty ought to be: does he/she have a criminal record?

If they have a criminal record of any crimes against persons (rape, murder, multiple assaults, ect): death penalty.

If they do not have a previous criminal record: life in prison.

In the first case, they may not have committed the murder that they are currently under sentence for, but clearly they are career criminals who cannot, do not want to be rehabilitated. The only thing life in prison is going to do for them is teach them new criminal skills.

In the second case, an Innocence Project type of outfit may find that they are indeed innocent. Having an unblemished record until the current conviction keeps them alive and allows their innocence to be proven.

Here is the real problem, besides the fact that violent criminals who belong to violent street gangs run their business just as effectively (if not more) from inside prison: the longer a person is in prison, the better his/her chances are that they will be paroled some day.

The longer Charles Manson is alive, the more memories fade of what he and his "family" did in the Tate/La Bianca slaughter, and the more the balance tips in favor of his being released.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
How did...

You misunderstood me. .


...I misunderstand this;

Here's my thought: if a person on death row is completely without any priors whatsoever, life in prison. If they have prior felonies, execute their azzes. Even if they're innocent of the current charges; that's too damn bad.

A little help, please?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Having...

I think he should have been executed. Carter was a waste of oxygen: The Violent Side of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter

Remember, Larry: liberals love Rubin Carter. What does that tell you?

...read up on Rubin Carter, from numerous sources, I'd say Rubin Carter wasn't one of Gods best children but he did NOT deserve to be put away for 20 years for something he didn't do.


This isn't Tookie Williams. Or that guy who murdered a couple of cops in Philly.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
...I misunderstand this;



A little help, please?

If they haven't had any prior convictions for violent crimes, that means they are sitting in prison, and it means that someone can work on proving their innocence of the current charges.

If they have a record of previous violent crimes, then there's no reason to keep them alive if they've been convicted of murder. That in no way bypasses the usual appeals process, mind you.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'm waiting...

If they haven't had any prior convictions for violent crimes, that means they are sitting in prison, and it means that someone can work on proving their innocence of the current charges.

If they have a record of previous violent crimes, then there's no reason to keep them alive if they've been convicted of murder. That in no way bypasses the usual appeals process, mind you.

...for you to say;

Here's my thought: if a person on death row is completely without any priors whatsoever, life in prison. If they have prior felonies, execute their azzes. Even if they're innocent of the current charges; that's too damn bad.

...that's not what you meant.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Consequences enforced all the time every time by parents and the system is the answer to much of crime.

If a kid is allowed by the parents to get away with being bad without being corrected, they learn that they can get away with being bad. The juvenile justice system is the same as a bad parent; let the kid get away with little or no real consequence. Courts let criminals get away with a slap on the wrist. All the same problem.

And legislators and people without good sense trying to legislate their personal preferences into law to impose them on others: no smoking, no drinking, no pot, no fireworks, no picking your nose in public. Are some things bad to do? Yep. Should they be against the law? NO! This is supposed to be the land of freedom. Every law imposes on that freedom. The number of laws should be as few as possible in order to preserve the greatest amount of freedom.

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow." --Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 62

It seems the legislators have surely missed that mark.
 
Last edited:

puggymom

Active Member
well I agree with this part .... NARL and their ilk have down everything possible to dumb down the Abortion Process ...

its a fetus not a child ... its only a little tissue ... :whistle:

However I don't beleive Animals are Sentient ... some maybe well trained, really clever ... but IMHO i beleive that they operate on instinct .... nothing more ....

:whistle:

<Playing devils advocate here as I love a nice piece of steak :drool:>

So you are saying it is all in personal opinion then? You may view animals as such but others do not.
So why is your opinion about it more valid than someone else's whether it be the choice to eat meat or in abortion?
 
Top