What was the punishment for not proofreading?
Lyncheing!
The only idea I can think of that would be better than this is another Fletch film.
I actually think a better way to do it would be a lottery system. Every day in every prison a number is drawn. If you’re the designated felon, whether or not you arrived at that prison the day before or had served out 39 years, 11 months and 30 days of your 40 year sentence, you get pwned.
I do not know the context in which Scalia is supposed to have made that comment, but it is certainly not correct in the sense that you employed it in your OP. As such, it has no weight in this discussion. (For example, a number of crimes, such as theft of livestock, did not become “felonies” until the third repetition of the act; in that case “felony” was used in the way we use “habitual criminal” today.) It is also possible that Scalia never made the comment. While variations on that comment appear in several locations, its provenance is never provided and the various “quotations” do not agree.
I think it’s hilarious that people are responding to this thread as though the OP raised a rational proposition about which reasonable people could disagree.
Nah. It just breaks the monotony of seeing a dozen threads arguing the most picayune nonsense regarding the presidential election.
There is no reason to take anything posted by Two and a Half Inches of Fun seriously.
I like to think of it as an intellectual exercise. His vocabulary has a whiff of college about it, and the challenge is to refute him without getting emotional about it. It helps if I ever end up arguing against someone I actually respect.
Since you are a moderator, how is this not a personal insult? Does this type of comment belong in GD?
QUOTE=Larry Borgia]I think it’s hilarious that people are responding to this thread as though the OP raised a rational proposition about which reasonable people could disagree.
[/QUOTE]
You know, sometimes a silly question, a nonsensical aside, or a ridiculous proposition can stir up the best debates or the most interesting conclusions.
More often, however, it just brings out the pretentiousness of people who post on message boards too much. 
Nietszhe once thought as you do.
I made no attack on your person. I made no claim that you lack intelligence or morals. I did not accuse your mother of dressing you funny.
OTOH, since you currently figure prominently in staff discussions regarding trolling, (and have been made aware of this point), I do not think there is a problem noting that other posters need not take your posts too seriously.
If you would like to change your manner of posting by not posting really silly and inflammatory threads, then we might begin to take you seriously.
I dunno, why don’t we ask Scalia what he thinks?
Was that comment made as a moderator? Can anybody announce that a poster’s posts do not need to be taken seriously?
Thanks. I’m flattered. I responded not because I thought that 2.5’s OP was worthy of serious consideration, but because the genuine answers to silly questions are sometimes quite a bit more interesting than the silliness.
One point I did not mention is the flaw in believing that because some component of deterrent value in sentences is a good thing, more must be better.
A counter-intuitive issue arising from this idea of increasing penalties without limit is that there comes a point at which extreme penalties place too much power in the hands of the dishonest. I well remember that in my jurisdiction, a senior police officer responsible for pursuing vice laws like prostitution promoted (and achieved) the idea that heavy penalties for those offences and rules of evidence that practically excluded acquittal were a terrific idea. He trumpeted their implementation as proof of his zeal in crime-fighting.
Years later, substantial evidence emerged that his purpose was not so worthy - he was shaking down the prostitutes, and the heavy penalties with no prospect of acquittal assisted him in extorting money from the industry.
The concern thus exposed can be generalised to dishonest behaviour by police in investigations generally and to dishonest behaviour by complainants who would abuse the law for oblique motives. Extreme penalties of the sort 2.5 suggests place his life in the hands of every vindictive turd he has ever crossed. Far be it from me to suggest how long that list might be.
Posters announce that other posters may or should be ignored all the time. You seem to not be paying attention to the actual posts on this board.
As an afterthought, how about only having the death penalty for acts that were crimes in 1800? Thus, drug possession and trafficking don’t count. Computer crime. Income tax evasion. In fact, reviewing the list in post 36;
Possessing any amount of marijuana or hashish with the intent to sell.
OP says death. 1800 says “What, death for the growing and sale of hemp? What will we make ropes out of?”
Helping an illegal immigrant enter the country.
OP says death. 1800 says “Hey, we need more colonists, this place is practically empty!”
Failing to report $10,000 on your income tax form.
OP says death. 1800 says “what’s an income tax form?”
Possessing child pornography.
OP says death. 1800 says “pornography? Like filthy books and paintings? What’s a ‘photograph’? What’s a ‘jpeg’?”
Vote fraud.
OP says death. 1800 says “Why are all these women and non-whites and non-landowners voting?”
Medicare fraud of $20,000 or more.
OP says death. 1800 says “what’s Medicare?”
Practicing medicine without a license.
OP says maybe. 1800 says “License? Who needs a license for bleedings and leechings?”
Hence the problem of applying 1800 standards to the modern world.
Plato was a bore.
Mickey Mouse’s dog was a bore?
Umm… I think you’re thinking of Goofy.
A serious response -
Another problem with the OP’s proposition is that it would cause murder rates to skyrocket. I mean, why settle for doing lesser crimes when a greater crime carries the same penalty? Why leave witnesses?
Not to mention cop killings. A mean, if criminals thought all the cops were out to kill them, wouldn’t they shoot first and ask questions later?