Sounds like a perfect ending to me.
I suspect that there are people who will buy him dinner over the next two months if need be.
Sounds like a perfect ending to me.
I suspect that there are people who will buy him dinner over the next two months if need be.
Well if this is true, then this gentleman stood and was reviewed for his actions. The system as it is, made its' decision.
So, Be it then. :asian:
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #143
Gee...should I respond in kind? OK--how many innocent people have to be executed before it's too many? Can I have a head count? What appalls me about these arguments, I have to say, is that they would mean turning your back on the last two hundred years of advances in the law...fer crissake, you're talking about going back before Blackstone, and HE was an eighteenth-century British judge! Now there was a, "soft on crime," society!
Again, read Sinclair Lewis: "The essence of the law is that the sweets of private vengeance shall be denied." And I still wanna know why anyone would want to haave the same sorts of laws that they have in Iran, North Korea and China...
Few years ago, we executed someone in Florida...chair didn't work right, his eyes and mouth and face caught fire, he begged for mercy for twenty minutes while they shocked him again and again and again. I guess human decency doesn't apply in such cases. Couple years ago, we executed a mentally retarded kid who had indeed killed somebody, when he was seventeen...he was estimated to have an IQ of perhaps 60, and desperately spent the last six months of his life trying to learn how to read, because he'd heard in court that he was too profoundly retarded to be taught to read, and he developed the idea that he was being executed because he couldn't read. When they brought him his last meal, he asked if he could keep his pie for, "after." I guess there's a lot to be proud of there.
Every time I have these arguments, I imagine an eight-year-old girl...she's living in the year 2503, and she's upset because in history class she's been reading about us...she's saying to her mom, "Mommy, what was WRONG with these people? Didn't they know any better?" And the response is, "Dear, they did the best they could. But they didn't know how to do anything about the reasons that people get sick and hurt others, and they thought that it was good that there were poor people. I know it's upsetting, but things got better."
Are there people I'd just as soon see shuffled off the planet? Absolutely. But you know....I don't get to make that decision, and a good thing too.
Again, read Sinclair Lewis: "The essence of the law is that the sweets of private vengeance shall be denied." And I still wanna know why anyone would want to haave the same sorts of laws that they have in Iran, North Korea and China...
Few years ago, we executed someone in Florida...chair didn't work right, his eyes and mouth and face caught fire, he begged for mercy for twenty minutes while they shocked him again and again and again. I guess human decency doesn't apply in such cases. Couple years ago, we executed a mentally retarded kid who had indeed killed somebody, when he was seventeen...he was estimated to have an IQ of perhaps 60, and desperately spent the last six months of his life trying to learn how to read, because he'd heard in court that he was too profoundly retarded to be taught to read, and he developed the idea that he was being executed because he couldn't read. When they brought him his last meal, he asked if he could keep his pie for, "after." I guess there's a lot to be proud of there.
Every time I have these arguments, I imagine an eight-year-old girl...she's living in the year 2503, and she's upset because in history class she's been reading about us...she's saying to her mom, "Mommy, what was WRONG with these people? Didn't they know any better?" And the response is, "Dear, they did the best they could. But they didn't know how to do anything about the reasons that people get sick and hurt others, and they thought that it was good that there were poor people. I know it's upsetting, but things got better."
Are there people I'd just as soon see shuffled off the planet? Absolutely. But you know....I don't get to make that decision, and a good thing too.
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #144
Good points from everyone. Now, let me address some of my issues. I'm not trying to instill fear but I don't want to see people become naieve anddevelop a false sense of security. I also know and agree that tougher laws won't eradicate crime, it may giv e some that aren't that 'driven' a second thought, but the bad guys will always be the bad guys. Again, we are getting away from my point. It's the rights of repeat offenders who commit crimes against humanity that shocks the consciense! I'm sorry if you disagree but subhumans like Rodriguez and Mause should not have ever seen the light of freedom. We will never erradicate crime but we can stop repeat offenders from victimizing again! What is wrong with revisions in parole requirements for violent offenders, crimes against humanity that shocks the consciense! Why in the world would you want to see offenders who have committed murder, rape, molestation, etc. back on the streets to do it all over again? How many more examples do you need? I asked for a head count, that was the wrong terminology, I should have asked for a 'BODY COUNT'!!!!!!!!! Gentlemen, sometimes I get the feeling (and I could be wrong) that even if i make a good point on something that I will not get the light of day from some because I am a police officer and lean toward the right. If this is not the case, I stand corrected but if so, please put this aside on this issue. Think about it. It is obvious we are all intelligent people on this forum why can't you see that there is a limit to protecting peoples rights when they cross certain lines because when you do, you are infringing on other peoples rights, the rights for them to be secure in their homes. The rights of the three teenage boys lying under concrete in Indiana, the rights of the 22 year old college co-ed from North Dakota. Everything, and I mean everything, in life is a 'trade-off'. Think about it, please. You are trading off the victims' and future victims' rights for those of the criminal! I don't see it and I don't know how you can justify it! Please reconsider your stands on this issue. Thank you. Respectfully, Joe
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #145
Alfonso Rodriguez update: Four months before his release last May, a prison psychologist stated if released he would be an "EXTREMELY HIGH RISK TO WOMEN", now I ask you, what part of this do some of you don't understand????????? C'ome on guys, you have to come around on this one! Sincerely, Joe
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #146
Well, for openers, the theory behind the Bill of Rights is of course that by protecting EVERYBODY'S rights, we protect our rights.
Second, let's get down to brass tacks. Show of hands...who's willing to have their taxes raised so that we can pay for a decent juvenile justice system? for a reasonable workload and decent pay for the caseworkers in Child Protective Services? for more, and better trained parole officers? for decent mental health clinics for screwed-up kids? for enough cops, prosecutors and judges if it comes to that? for decent rehab services for inmates, and decent monitoring so fewer loons get let out?
We've known what, "causes," most crime for well over a century. It stems from lousy communities, lousy families, hopeless poverty. It stems from a culture of violence. It stems from pathetic schools and a complete social refusal to deal in any meaningful or useful fashion with f****d-up kids, whose disastrous adulthoods can usually be seen a long way off. We've known this forever, and we do jack about it.
Personally, I think crime also stems from kids' awareness of adult hypocrisy, their absorption of a, "get it and screw the next guy," mentality from a capitalist society, and their inhabiting an urban landscape filled with ugliness.
Of course, crime also stems from the existence of large numbers of 14-26 year old males, which is a chunk of the reasons crime has been declining--their numbers have been declining. And of course, there are simply monsters, there really are--fortunately, not as many as the TV would have us believe, but they're there.
We just won't pay to do anything about it. And before you start in on, "we're overtaxed as it is," or, "they need to learn to be efficient," well, fiddlesticks. LA has somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the number of cops they should have, and the good people of the county WILL NOT pay for an adequate police force. Or better training for them. Or decent computer networks. Or community policing. Or storefront stations. Or ANY of the stuff that we've known will work for a good long time. So, cops go out alone in cars. Nobody walks a beat. And everybody pontificates, like Darryl gates did right before he went to a big party right as the latest LA riots started....
We're too cheap. Much better to execute a few, cram the prisons with minorities, let the white-collar crime go, and stick our heads in the sand.
Second, let's get down to brass tacks. Show of hands...who's willing to have their taxes raised so that we can pay for a decent juvenile justice system? for a reasonable workload and decent pay for the caseworkers in Child Protective Services? for more, and better trained parole officers? for decent mental health clinics for screwed-up kids? for enough cops, prosecutors and judges if it comes to that? for decent rehab services for inmates, and decent monitoring so fewer loons get let out?
We've known what, "causes," most crime for well over a century. It stems from lousy communities, lousy families, hopeless poverty. It stems from a culture of violence. It stems from pathetic schools and a complete social refusal to deal in any meaningful or useful fashion with f****d-up kids, whose disastrous adulthoods can usually be seen a long way off. We've known this forever, and we do jack about it.
Personally, I think crime also stems from kids' awareness of adult hypocrisy, their absorption of a, "get it and screw the next guy," mentality from a capitalist society, and their inhabiting an urban landscape filled with ugliness.
Of course, crime also stems from the existence of large numbers of 14-26 year old males, which is a chunk of the reasons crime has been declining--their numbers have been declining. And of course, there are simply monsters, there really are--fortunately, not as many as the TV would have us believe, but they're there.
We just won't pay to do anything about it. And before you start in on, "we're overtaxed as it is," or, "they need to learn to be efficient," well, fiddlesticks. LA has somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the number of cops they should have, and the good people of the county WILL NOT pay for an adequate police force. Or better training for them. Or decent computer networks. Or community policing. Or storefront stations. Or ANY of the stuff that we've known will work for a good long time. So, cops go out alone in cars. Nobody walks a beat. And everybody pontificates, like Darryl gates did right before he went to a big party right as the latest LA riots started....
We're too cheap. Much better to execute a few, cram the prisons with minorities, let the white-collar crime go, and stick our heads in the sand.
Or, perhaps not everyone believes that they are their brothers' keepers.
Still, I agree with much of what you've written.
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #148
Well, first, as I'm sure you meant to point out---the odd thing is, that Christianity teaches that we are in fact our brother's keepers...this is why, when a minister in Orange County opened a soup kitchen and job counseling center in the basement of his church a few years back, the neighbors and some of his congregation went ape on him...and yet people scoff at evolution.
Then too, it has nothing to do, in a sense, with helping others or doing what's right. It has to do with building a society in which one wants to live and raise kids...but in which one can also get good cannoli on Saturday night...leave the gun, take the cannoli, they say...
Thanks for the discussion.
Then too, it has nothing to do, in a sense, with helping others or doing what's right. It has to do with building a society in which one wants to live and raise kids...but in which one can also get good cannoli on Saturday night...leave the gun, take the cannoli, they say...
Thanks for the discussion.
Yes, for me it's about living in a society that I am proud to be a member of, meaning in part one that helps those in need--that's the key thing that makes me inclined to vote for wider social welfare programs.
But it can be a matter of self-interest if one believes that strengthening the community strengthens the economy, lessens crime, etc. Still, I must admit that this argument--bing charitable for one's own selfish reasons and to further one's narrow self-interest--has always struck me as too Ayn Rand for me to be comfortable with it. That may not be a good reason to dislike it, but that's how it hits me!
But it can be a matter of self-interest if one believes that strengthening the community strengthens the economy, lessens crime, etc. Still, I must admit that this argument--bing charitable for one's own selfish reasons and to further one's narrow self-interest--has always struck me as too Ayn Rand for me to be comfortable with it. That may not be a good reason to dislike it, but that's how it hits me!
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #150
I agree. I think you should do what's right because it's right--and (don't tell anybody I said this) one of my problems with some Organized Religions has almost always been that they seem to teach, "Do what's right because otherwise I'll pop you upside the head, and do what's right because if you do you'll get a lollipop."
And I agree--Ayn Rand--the nadir of philosophy. The anti-Simone DeBeauvoir, whose, "The Blood of Others," should be required reading.
My understanding was...hm. Better skip that one.
Good point.
And I agree--Ayn Rand--the nadir of philosophy. The anti-Simone DeBeauvoir, whose, "The Blood of Others," should be required reading.
My understanding was...hm. Better skip that one.
Good point.
OP
Karazenpo
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #151
Robert, you've made some excellent points. Fustrating, though, isn't it? Sincerely, Joe
I wonder if we can accomplish these better societies without coming to something like "The Covenent", by Robert Heinlein. I know he is fiction writer. Society had a physical place they woudl send all of the criminals. They were no longer allowed into society as it were. Yet they ended up with their own society all their own.
Now I am not saying anything to the point that you guys are not right. Nor I am trying to trivialize it with mentioning a fiction writer. I just am not as well read in some of the politcal areas as some other members
:asian:
Now I am not saying anything to the point that you guys are not right. Nor I am trying to trivialize it with mentioning a fiction writer. I just am not as well read in some of the politcal areas as some other members
:asian:
