Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

epeemike81 · 08-23-2002, 05:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
Technically, incarceration cannot be reversed, either---only terminated. You cannot give a person back ten or twenty years, and even money will not compensate for it.<hr /></blockquote>true, but the ACTUAL point I was making remains the same.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We do many things as a society that we do not allow the individual to do. Make laws. Levy taxes. Take the property of others by condemnation or eminent domain. Fine and imprison and draft to send to foreign conflicts. Capital punishment is no different. It's all part of the social contract under which we live in a group; we give up certain rights to the State.<hr /></blockquote>what about our nations "agreement" to be part of the international community?? We threaten to eliminate aid to Egypt because they jail a man (not execute) on trumped up charges, meanwhile our justice department refuses to disclose who they are holding, where they are being held, and what the probable cause is. Then there is the case where Texas executes a Mexican citizen without allowing him to see a representative of the Mexican Consulate, which IS his right under international law. the problem is that American's want their citizens to never be held, let alone executed, in a foreign country, but we are fine with executing anybody.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To say that the State has no right to do anything that an individual is forbidden to do would be senseless.<hr /></blockquote>True. which is why I didn't say it. I just said that I believe that neither the state NOR an individual has the right to kill somebody (at least as a punitive measure).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />and it is generally recognized---even in countries where capital punishment is not practiced---that even individuals have the right to kill under certain circumstances (such as self-defense or defense of another from grievous bodily harm or death, in war, etc.)<hr /></blockquote>See my point about pragmatism. if it were necessary to execute people for the protection of society, I would not have a problem with it. it's not!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So on the one hand the State cannot kill because the individual cannot, and yet on the other it cannot because the individual can?<hr /></blockquote>wow, your skills at bastardizing an argument are truly astounding.

-m

epeemike81 · 08-23-2002, 06:17 AM

It occurs to me that a story I heard on NPR this morning might be relevant to this discussion:

It was the story of Sacco and Vanzetti. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder in the robbery of an armored car in the early 1920's. That was a time in our history when the justice Dept. was trying to curtail anarchist activities, which were associated with Italian immigrants. Thus, Sacco and Vanzetti were sentenced to death in a trial which was ANYTHING but fair. By the time the climate changed in the country, there was nobody worrying about whether they got a fair trial because they were already dead. Is anybody so naive as to think that that couldn't happen today?

"If there is one thing we learn from history, it is that we do not learn from history." -Aldous Huxley

-m

[ 08-23-2002, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

HilandDoug · 08-23-2002, 06:38 AM

EDEW wrote, "You sound just as sick as the guy himself. When do we get to run you through several times? As soon as possible, maybe, for preventive measures, of course."

I have 4 neices that I'm very close to, all within 2 years of that little girl's same age. This whole news story effected me greatly. I believe I let my emotions get out of control in that post. Although I favor the death penalty for this guy, I would not like to do it myself. Just wanted to make that clear.

latenight · 08-23-2002, 07:13 AM

my two cents:

When values are sufficient, Laws are unnecessary. When values are insufficient, Laws are unenforceable." - Barry Asmus

135711 · 08-23-2002, 05:41 PM

EDEW! wow, this is the needle in the claw. You pose the $64,000 question of the universe, What causes a person to get like that?

the answers are so complex that there ceases to be an answer. one thing to know about this topic in general, is that the study of these people, in that we write about them, study them, hospitalize them, interview them etc, actually causes others to model them. so, i believe it starts at conception: genetic predisposition, which is nutured by family, friends, society, media, and evenually someone busts out and goes wacko. it may begin with a pychotic eposide that goes unnoticed or unchecked, and grows over time. there are tons of books written about them, but a prolific fiction author who has captured much of their timbre seems to be joyce carol oates. 'Wonderland', 'Them', 'The Barrens', 'Expensive People'. There's a wide variety of those type of people. Those who want something 'different, or exotic', those who want control, to be very strong, some who want to be 'smarter' the trickters as described by joyce in Wonderland by a character who benignly starts a friendship with someone and tries to destroy him at every turn. but the friendship had a design from the beginning. other authors have described crime, criminals, but the settings in which joyce places them,is mundane. Which is the crucx of the problem. It is "Disatisfaction" with a capital D, which causes a person to seek something else, something better. Very much like the person who seeks more, better partners, more bigger houses, more and more until there is nothing left to satify them. It is literally banal, it is the source of the dissatisfaction which leads people, societies into war, genocide and continuous distructive behavior.

[ 08-23-2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: 135711 ]

Inquartata · 08-23-2002, 07:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
[QBI'm sorry, but that's a sorry a$$ excuse for murdering a person for something that the person did not do. The main fact is, if you murder, er, execute a person who did not commit the crime, regardless of that person's lengthy criminal record, the person who actually did commit the crime is still out there, potentially capable of committing the crime again (and now, with people's guards down because they think they've done away with the supposed criminal).[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>Here's a quote from H.L. Mencken which sort of sums up my feelings on the matter:

"Capital punishment has failed in America simply because it has never been tried. If all criminals of a plainly incurable sort were put to death tomorrow there would be enormously less crime in the next generation. England tried that scheme in the 18th century, with great success. To be sure, a great many persons were killed who were no worse than weaklings succumbing in the face of irresistible temptation, but...the genuinely criminal were stamped out along with the weaklings. As a result England shows a low crime rate today. Fot one Englishman who in the face of severe temptation or provocation is moved to homicide, you will find 10 Frenchmen and probably 100 Americans."

In other words, you get them out of the gene pool.

As to the "real killer" still walking around, and people letting down their guards, precisely the same thing happens if a person is sent to prison for the crime. The community still believes that it is now safe. This is scarcely an argument in favor of imprisonment over death. It IS an argument for being sure the right person is convicted, but the method of removing him from society is in this instance immaterial.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The difference is that humans, as individuals can commit murder. It's not (sometimes) justified, but they can. The state, however, should not be in the business of committing murder. <hr /></blockquote>You confuse murder with killing, I think. There are many forms of killing which are not murder...and in fact insofar as it is the state which by law defines what is and is not murder the state cannot logically commit the latter act as long as it acts in accordance with the law. Agents of the state who engage in extralegal acts such as lynchings with the approval of the state are another matter, but clearly executions do not fall under this exception.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Let people do that dirty deed, if need be, but the state should have as little power as possible.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed, though in all candour we must admit that that ship has long since sailed. ( And reached its destination, and been retired and sold for scrap.

)

Ahem. But which alternative gives the State more power: the construction and maintenance of a massive bureaucracy in order to incarcerate large numbers of dangerous inmates for life, or the simple disposal of them?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Killing people is one power I don't want my government (or any government) to have. <hr /></blockquote>So you would prefer to see the police disarmed, then? And the army as well?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
No, they didn't deserve to die because of the state's irresponsibility. But that doesn't mean that the solution is to kill that one murderous person. Solitary confinement, chains, whatever, may be other solutions.<hr /></blockquote>Enduring the death of one known and admitted murderer in order to save two other lives is a tradeoff I am willing to see made.

The "other solutions" you envision may well be better alternatives, though perhaps unworkable
( solitary faces the hurdle of prison overcrowding, restraints would bring cries of "cruel and unusual" even more than death does ), but I am not so sure even then...
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Prisons are expensive because the prison industry wants the money. All the more reason to legalize more things. I don't approve of the way the prison industry extort money from the population by colluding with the legislators and law enforcement in making more and more activities criminal, thereby making their livelihood worthwhile. The US has the highest concentration and number of people in prison. It's bleeping ridiculous that we have so many people in prison. And it's the bleeping prison industry lobby that makes decent politicians into criminals by association if those politicians don't take a hard-line anti-crime stance.<hr /></blockquote>Hear, hear! On this point we are in perfect accord. Mandatory sentencing guidelines and "three strikes" laws and the "War on Drugs" are all at the root of overcrowding ( and other problems ), and all are designed to send more state resources the way of the prison industry and its unions. Broadening the base of what is considered "serious" crime and punishing it ever more harshly isn't working from anyone else's standpoint...

On the other hand, that's another problem. Perhaps when we get it solved---if we ever can---we can then reconsider capital punishment. But to start by eliminating the death penalty is to put the cart before the horse and merely make overcrowding and prison violence worse.

epeemike81 · 08-23-2002, 08:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by H.L. Mencken (c/o Inquartata):
Capital punishment has failed in America simply because it has never been tried. If all criminals of a plainly incurable sort were put to death tomorrow there would be enormously less crime in the next generation. England tried that scheme in the 18th century, with great success. To be sure, a great many persons were killed who were no worse than weaklings succumbing in the face of irresistible temptation, but...the genuinely criminal were stamped out along with the weaklings. As a result England shows a low crime rate today. For one Englishman who in the face of severe temptation or provocation is moved to homicide, you will find 10 Frenchmen and probably 100 Americans.<hr /></blockquote>remember that Mencken wrote in the 20's. First of all, who determines who is a "plainly incurable sort"? Secondly, even Mencken acknowledges that mistakes will be made, and that you can only get ALL of the criminals by getting weaklings too. is it much of a jump to include a few innocent people in that group? I think not. You actually consider killing the "weaklings" with the genuinely criminal a GOOD thing? isn't this what is meant by throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Also, Mencken holds up England as an example. I submit that there MAY have been other factors to the lower crime rate in England:

More stringent gun controls
</li>
A more homogeneous society
</li>

If you want to use England as a shining example, that is fine with me. to be more like England, we must enact stringent gun control laws and NOT execute people.
Given Mencken's cynical nature, and well known anti-anglo bias, one must consider the possibility that this quote was tongue in cheek.
-m

[ 08-25-2002, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

epeemike81 · 08-23-2002, 08:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
Enduring the death of one known and admitted murderer in order to save two other lives is a tradeoff I am willing to see made.
<hr /></blockquote>this presupposes that every murderer will murder two others in prison. This is an inherently flawed assumption.

In addition, better training of guards and better use of monitoring technologies can reduce the occurence of such killings in prison. can they be eliminated? no. But then again, the death penalty can't eliminate them either. There are plenty of murders committed on the inside by people who are NOT in prison for murder.

-m

[ 08-24-2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

edew · 08-23-2002, 10:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
[QBI'm sorry, but that's a sorry a$$ excuse for murdering a person for something that the person did not do. The main fact is, if you murder, er, execute a person who did not commit the crime, regardless of that person's lengthy criminal record, the person who actually did commit the crime is still out there, potentially capable of committing the crime again (and now, with people's guards down because they think they've done away with the supposed criminal).<hr /></blockquote>Here's a quote from H.L. Mencken which sort of sums up my feelings on the matter:

"Capital punishment has failed in America simply because it has never been tried. If all criminals of a plainly incurable sort were put to death tomorrow there would be enormously less crime in the next generation. England tried that scheme in the 18th century, with great success. To be sure, a great many persons were killed who were no worse than weaklings succumbing in the face of irresistible temptation, but...the genuinely criminal were stamped out along with the weaklings. As a result England shows a low crime rate today. Fot one Englishman who in the face of severe temptation or provocation is moved to homicide, you will find 10 Frenchmen and probably 100 Americans."

In other words, you get them out of the gene pool. <hr /></blockquote>Mencken is hardly a social scientist and hardly has any reputation insofar as it concerns how the state should treat criminals. As for the gene pool, I think the vast majority of these psychopaths like Richard Allen Davis, Cary Stayner, John Wayne Gacy, and many others never procreated, even during the times when they are able to. It's hardly the case that the abovenamed killers were sons (or daughters) of vicious killers, thus completely destroying the claim that they inherited some predisposition to killing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
As to the "real killer" still walking around, and people letting down their guards, precisely the same thing happens if a person is sent to prison for the crime. The community still believes that it is now safe. This is scarcely an argument in favor of imprisonment over death. It IS an argument for being sure the right person is convicted, but the method of removing him from society is in this instance immaterial.<hr /></blockquote>It's quite material in that it's revocable.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The difference is that humans, as individuals can commit murder. It's not (sometimes) justified, but they can. The state, however, should not be in the business of committing murder. <hr /></blockquote>You confuse murder with killing, I think. There are many forms of killing which are not murder...and in fact insofar as it is the state which by law defines what is and is not murder the state cannot logically commit the latter act as long as it acts in accordance with the law. Agents of the state who engage in extralegal acts such as lynchings with the approval of the state are another matter, but clearly executions do not fall under this exception.<hr /></blockquote>I am not confusing murder with killing. Killing is killing is killing, whether it's out of emotional reaction, out of greed, out of self-defense or whatever other circumstance. We (through the courts) decide whether the killing is justified. In the case of the state, I feel that no killing can be justified. Although we can discuss separately the case during war, as I have stated in a prior post.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Let people do that dirty deed, if need be, but the state should have as little power as possible.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed, though in all candour we must admit that that ship has long since sailed. ( And reached its destination, and been retired and sold for scrap.

)

Ahem. But which alternative gives the State more power: the construction and maintenance of a massive bureaucracy in order to incarcerate large numbers of dangerous inmates for life, or the simple disposal of them?<hr /></blockquote>The disposal is hardly simple, and unfortunately, never revocable. Make a mistake, and it's a mistake that can't be corrected.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Killing people is one power I don't want my government (or any government) to have. <hr /></blockquote>So you would prefer to see the police disarmed, then? And the army as well?
<hr /></blockquote>I would prefer to see a completely disarmed police force. I would prefer to see no government-led police force. As for the military, I personally would prefer to see the state be neutral to all other nations in terms of war and such politics. That said, I would like to see as little spent on defense as possible. Of course, the world is hardly near there at the moment, so I reserve offering a definitive EDEW comment for another thread.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
On the other hand, that's another problem. Perhaps when we get it solved---if we ever can---we can then reconsider capital punishment. But to start by eliminating the death penalty is to put the cart before the horse and merely make overcrowding and prison violence worse.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>No, the first thing is to stop capital punishment. When the prisons overfill, start letting people out. Jail the corrupt "correctional officers" union, if anything. It's already well established that capital punishment is unfairly metted out to the poor and disadvantaged. That it does nothing to prevent future murders or other heinous crimes. That innocent people have been condemned to die. That it costs way too much for the whole process. Given all that, what's the social and opportunity cost to stop capital punishment? It's much less than the cost to continue it.

Barbarism in the name of social good is as disgustingly wicked as anything on earth. I see no difference between sentencing a person to die than the Pakistani tribes who sentenced a woman to be gang raped for some crime her brother allegedly committed. We aren't so different that those we abhor.

135711 · 08-24-2002, 05:05 PM

we may not have any choice edew, most probably, civilization will erupt into a mass of earthquakes and molden lava, mudslides and landslides, folding us into a neat little cake batter, wherein we'll bake except for a handful of people and then we'll start again.

As for the gene pool, they never procreated.....
um, i think so, but it was sorta not legit.

[ 08-24-2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: 135711 ]

MikeHarm · 08-24-2002, 07:28 PM

All things die and are broken. Someone getting caught murdering children seems like a good enough reason to hurry that process along to me.

135711 · 08-24-2002, 09:00 PM

Start with Wonderland and go to The Barrens, it's all there. those two in england should be hung. they're a duplicate of the two that did the same thing in wales long long ago, and they too were hung.

[ 08-25-2002, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: 135711 ]

Catlady · 08-24-2002, 11:53 PM

On the too dumb to get out of jury duty topic, from what I understand, if you're too smart you won't get picked for a jury.

The truth is when a jury is selected each lawyer is looking not necessarily for who will be the most fair, but for who is most likely to hand down a verdict favorable to his client. Not pretty but true, and most lawyers would probably admit it.

I have heard from a friend who went to law school--and the only proof I have is what she said, so if I'm wrong, please correct me-- if you have attended law school, even for a year, even if you didn't graduate, you will not have to serve on a jury. I supose because you know all the tricks. I have also heard that generally those with advanced degrees are not chosen to serve on juries either. Again this is on word of mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.

On the death penalty, the truth is I waiver. Right now, I lean toward the pro side, but just barely. It's not something about which I'm particularly happy, and I don't derive any joy from its occurence, but it's one of those nasty jobs that has to be done. I agree that to some extent, jail is a cushy deal, despite what many people may say about the spiritual consequences of not being free. I'd rather see the money spent on keeping some of the people in jail fed clothed and alive spent on helping the homeless--okay, some people are there because they made bad choices and continue to make them, but some have literally suffered an incredible stream of bad luck. Or providing food for starving children, or supporting neglected animals. Also, deterent or not, there are times, such as in the case of this guy, when it's worth it to just remove the criminal from society completely, like puting down a rabid animal. On the anti side though, I consider myself a Christian, and there's a lot to be said in that philosophy for not judging, and for forgiveness, but there's certainly plenty in the bible to support the death penalty too, and in my mind it's possible to forgive someone, but still realize that it's not a good idea to associate with them anymore. I guess that could possibly to ended the association by ended a life. The other part that worries me about the death penalty is something best summed up by Gandalf in LOTR of all places, "you can take life away, but are you capable of giving it back again if you're wrong?" In this case, obviously the guy is one sick son of a b. and he did it, but that's not always the case. If nothing else, it's an argument for a thorough appeals process. In this guy's case, I'd be in favor of torturing him first. Possibly at the hands of the victim's parents. The same goes for the perpetrator of a case in my home state, I don't know how wide spread the coverage on this guy was so you may know all the details, but the short story is that he kidnapped a 10yr old--I could be wrong on the age, but definitely under 14yrs--raped her and beat her severely. He probably would have killed her, but someone heard the girl screaming and the cops got there in time to save her. However, it's possible that this girl will lose vision completely in one eye and it hasn't been determined how much, if any, brain damage she may have sustained. The doctors are fairly certain now that she'll live, but apparently that was in doubt for a while too. I figure I could do quite a bit of damage to the charming individual responsible for this without killing him. Oddly, I still don't think I could kill someone, on the other hand, a friend--really I don't discuss this kind of stuff on a regular basis-- claims he could probably kill someone, but would have a problem with torture. Okay, I think I'm done now for a while.

epeemike81 · 08-25-2002, 02:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Catlady:
I'd rather see the money spent on keeping some of the people in jail fed clothed and alive spent on helping the homeless--okay, some people are there because they made bad choices and continue to make them, but some have literally suffered an incredible stream of bad luck. Or providing food for starving children, or supporting neglected animals.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />If nothing else, it's an argument for a thorough appeals process.<hr /></blockquote>But, as previously discussed, when you add a lengthy appeals proccess, it is actually MORE expensive to execute than house for life. So, the question becomes: would you rather spend x+y on death row inmates, or x on housing them for life, and y on those social programs you discussed? is killing the occasional psycopath worth the lives of less heinous criminals AND the money it would cost?

-m

Philistine · 08-25-2002, 05:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Catlady:
On the too dumb to get out of jury duty topic, from what I understand, if you're too smart you won't get picked for a jury.

The truth is when a jury is selected each lawyer is looking not necessarily for who will be the most fair, but for who is most likely to hand down a verdict favorable to his client. Not pretty but true, and most lawyers would probably admit it.
<hr /></blockquote>

It's probably closer to the truth to say that in picking a jury you are looking for jurors who are least likely to hand down a verdict unfavorable to your client.

It's a fine distinction, but you generally (unless it is a big murder case) get very few peremtory challenges (the ability to remove a juror without demonstrating to the judge that the juror is biased, or otherwise incapable of fairly serving).

As such, the general strategy, where possible, is to remove those who would be likely to find against your client, especially if they have a strong personality.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
I have heard from a friend who went to law school--and the only proof I have is what she said, so if I'm wrong, please correct me-- if you have attended law school, even for a year, even if you didn't graduate, you will not have to serve on a jury. I supose because you know all the tricks. <hr /></blockquote>

Not so. I have seen lawyers on juries. While in many cases one (or the other) of the lawyers would likely prefer not to have a lawyer on the case, there are often worse people in the panel, and being a lawyer is not grounds, in and of itself, to be excused.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
I have also heard that generally those with advanced degrees are not chosen to serve on juries either. Again this is on word of mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.
<hr /></blockquote>

Generally true where that advanced degree would be relevant to the case, as they don't want that person to act as an expert in the jury room. Other than that, it's not really a major down-side (again, depending on the case).

--Philistine

epeemike81 · 08-26-2002, 09:05 AM

Yet more evidence of mistakes:

A murder 1 conviction was just overturned due to new DNA evidence in Detroit.

Such mistakes are a very good reason not to do anything as permanent as death.

-m

Gav · 08-26-2002, 10:01 AM

I noticed that someone held "England" as a shining example of capital punishment. What do you mean by England? Do you mean England or Great Britain or The United Kingdom or even The British Empire? I'm sorry I only ask as I am not familiar with 'Mencken'.

If Britain was so succesful at removing the criminal gene why are crimes still committed? In fact the death penalty didn't act as a particular detterent as people were still killing each other while capital punishment was in force for all kinds of reasons.

In addition how do you decide who belongs in the criminal classes and where, once you start, do you draw the line? Who gets to decide who should live and who should die? Britain didn't kill all of it's criminals anyway. The excerpt I've just read seems to describe some kind of mass cull of the 'criminal class'. What's a criminal? Don't forget it was Britain who developed the concentration camp during the Boer war. If the State gets to decide who lives and who dies (who is worth more or less) then you are on a very slippery slope. I doubt there are many people nowadays from the UK who would look back on the Empire with a warm glow in their belly.

epeemike81 · 08-26-2002, 10:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
I noticed that someone held "England" as a shining example of capital punishment. What do you mean by England? Do you mean England or Great Britain or The United Kingdom or even The British Empire? I'm sorry I only ask as I am not familiar with 'Mencken'.

If Britain was so succesful at removing the criminal gene why are crimes still committed? In fact the death penalty didn't act as a particular detterent as people were still killing each other while capital punishment was in force for all kinds of reasons.

In addition how do you decide who belongs in the criminal classes and where, once you start, do you draw the line? Who gets to decide who should live and who should die? Britain didn't kill all of it's criminals anyway. The excerpt I've just read seems to describe some kind of mass cull of the 'criminal class'. What's a criminal? Don't forget it was Britain who developed the concentration camp during the Boer war. If the State gets to decide who lives and who dies (who is worth more or less) then you are on a very slippery slope. I doubt there are many people nowadays from the UK who would look back on the Empire with a warm glow in their belly.<hr /></blockquote>Great points. My guess is that Mencken meant Britain when he said England, but I cannot be certain. A little background: Mencken was cynical writer for the Baltimore Sun in the 1920's. he is most famous for his scathing commentary on the "boobocracy" in the south at the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial (a trial in which a challenge was brought in southern courts against the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools), but was also a well known supporter of Germany in WWI and a critic of Britain in many arenas, as he looked down upon the Aristocracy in Britain. He was also a well known anti-semite, though he was very inconsistent in that he had many close friends who were Jewish. If you want a more detailed, perhaps less biased view of Mencken, there are no shortage of sites online.

-m

[ 08-26-2002, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

135711 · 08-26-2002, 07:50 PM

once again, i feel we over analyze this. it's relatively simple. it seems to be an ongoing problem in our country amongst 'lawmakers' and others. really what it has done for a long time is protect people with politcal connections from either seeing prison, or getting the chair. in the past month they've arrested several people involved with henious crimes, and they just sit in a jail, waiting for another generation who has forgotton them to let them out. believe it or not, this laxity in our system is one of the reasons why we find ourselves in pickles with other nations. from my own experience working with the islamic people in the pacific, they are horrified by this laxity, it prompts them to become terrified of big american men going into their countries and hurting their wives and children. they don't want this, so they strike out. it's a feeling of helplessness. there they are living on a farm, milking cows and 40 peace corps volunteers plop down next to them. the volunteers are from all over the united states, many are nice, but many may not be, some may be big problem, and some are big problem. then because of this, they say, okay, we give up, we're sending our kid to Princeton, who becomes and engineer, and then he gets a job working on the hoover dam, while joe smith freaks out because 'they're all coming over here'. the would would be a simpler place though....

Inquartata · 08-26-2002, 08:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
remember that Mencken wrote in the 20's. First of all, who determines who is a "plainly incurable sort"? <hr /></blockquote>I think that by the time you have acquired a "rap sheet" with more than five or six serious entries as an adult you qualify. If the local police know you on sight and by name you probably qualify. If your photo is hanging in a Post Office, you probably qualify. If...but this is starting to sound like a Jeff Foxworthy routine... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Secondly, even Mencken acknowledges that mistakes will be made, and that you can only get ALL of the criminals by getting weaklings too. is it much of a jump to include a few innocent people in that group? I think not. You actually consider killing the "weaklings" with the genuinely criminal a GOOD thing? <hr /></blockquote>Well, Mencken was an ardent, ah, advocate of the eugenic effects of things like capital punishment. He would probably have said that if a few innocents get caught in the wheels it's a small enough price to pay. However, we have a few more safeguards now fortunately. And again, we have to define "innocent". Someone who has ten prior arrests and two convictions for assault before he finally gets convicted of a murder is probably not going to be missed, even if he is not guilty of the murder in question. ( In all likelihood, he will be eventually. )

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I submit that there MAY have been other factors to the lower crime rate in England: More stringent gun controls<hr /></blockquote>There was not that much in the way of gun control in England in the 18th century. Or the 19th. Or unril the latter half of the 20th, indeed. Which, as you pointed out, was the period to which Mencken was referring.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> A more homogeneous society<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure that was a factor.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you want to use England as a shining example, that is fine with me. to be more like England, we must enact stringent gun control laws and NOT execute people.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, yes, but the Mencken quote referred to a time when they did have the death penalty, and little or no gun control. Things have clearly changed...and not for the better, crime-wise. Could there be a connection?