Don’t know about that, but I can certainly think that one poster or another’s posts need not be taken seriously, and I’m thinkin’ that right about now.
I asked earlier about crimes where the quantity of evidence was low. I mean, the OP generously gave us this example:
How many crimes actually have this much circumstantial evidence? If this is the standard, I predict the U.S. would see fewer executions, not more. After all, how many people are on death row largely because of eyewitness testimony of “I saw him do it” as opposed to “he later told me he did it”?
Heck, I’d support the the OP’s “extensive evidence” standard, because it represents a far tighter standard than what is now in effect. He never did reply to my inquiry about cases where evidence was not so extensive, though, so I assume the DP is off the table for those. If you’re robbing a warehouse at night and some watchman yells “Hey you!”, it’s not necessary to kill him because any felony (including burglary) puts you in the death house and you’ve nothing to lose. You’re better off just running away, because the watchman’s testimony won’t meet the proposed standard. He is essentially irrelevant because there is always the possibility he was wrong, and the standard is “no possibility” of innocence.
The definition of “felony” in English law at the time involved all crimes punishable by forfeiture of life or goods. From Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution”
No, silly, he was a dog. The three little pigs were boars.
Presumably. I mean, if they were girl pigs, I never heard about it before.
I’ll give it one more try:
-
There are complicated psychological and socioeconomic factors that contribute to people committing crimes. The OP’s apparent willingness to write off all felons as irredeemably evil and deserving of death seems not only incredibly callous but woefully naive.
-
Furthermore, there will inevitably be some people who are wrongly convicted, no matter how certain you require the judge or jury to be. Don’t you think the prosecutors, juries, and judges felt certain of the defendant’s guilt in the cases where people have been sentenced to death? And yet some of these people have been later exonerated by DNA evidence (and undoubtedly other innocents have been executed because DNA evidence failed to be tested, or there was no DNA recovered from the scene – unless you’re so foolish as to think that wrongful convictions only happen in cases where there’s available DNA evidence.) By drastically increasing the number of death sentences, the OP’s proposal would drastically increase the number of wrongful deaths.
-
The OP’s proposal would also lead to far more murders, as basically every felon would have no reason not to go down in a hail of gunfire. If you know you’ll get the death penalty for embezzling, you don’t have any reason to come quietly when the cops are knocking at your door. Plus, as someone mentioned above, there’s a lot more incentive to kill all the witnesses.
-
If the OP expects this plan to be a significant deterrent to crime, I think he’s being unrealistically optimistic. Criminals commit crimes expecting to get away with them – few are sitting there saying “Well, robbing this convenience store is worth spending the next decade in prison, just so long as they don’t kill me.” If on the other hand the OP thinks that we’ll do away with crime by killing all the criminals, then I suggest he think harder. There will always be more criminals, and killing people’s fathers, brothers, and friends will only increase their sense of outrage and their resentment of the government (and the richer and more privileged people they perceive to control it), which will only breed more crime.
I realize I’m probably arguing with a brick wall here, since anyone who would put forth such a ill-conceived proposal probably isn’t the sort to consider any arguments that contradict his own view point. But hey, I tried.
An easier solution would just be to send everyone to Carousel when they turn thirty. At least it’d be fair.
You mean like the smell of a fraternity house bathroom the morning after a burrito and Blatz party?
Let’s find out.
I, Lemur866, hereby declare that Two and a Half Inches of Fun’s posts do not need to be taken seriously.
Now let’s see if I get warned by the moderators!
:: rides up on my great winged unicorn, Pookie ::
Candygram for 2.5 Inches of Fun! You’re wanted in the Pit!
:: rides off before anyone points out that unicorns don’t have wings ::
Obviously, Tomndebb is capable of fighting his own battles, but let me take a moment to address what lies under your questions.
Moderators are regular board members who also have a “moderator hat” that we can put on when required for board management purposes. Although the word “moderator” under our names does keep us a bit more careful about what we say, it does not prevent us from posting what other members might post.
The definition of “personal insult” is the same for moderators as it is for anyone else.
Tomndebb is obviously better-qualified to answer “does this type of comment belong in GD,” since he’s a GD moderator and I’m a Game Room moderator, but you have to remember that you have a history of starting highly-inflammatory threads, and you start them in just about every forum on the boards. Can you honestly argue that you started the “Help me increase my carbon footprint” and “Set your dance card for T. Kennedy’s Grave―Here’s to his rape in Hell by his brothers” threads for any reason other than to piss people off?
So… is your actual argument:
- Judge Scalia argued a similar position to yours? And, since he is a Supreme Court Judge, it should be taken as the correct interpretation of the Constitution and thus enacted everywhere?
or are you expecting, somehow,
- That some Scalia-fan will come in, argue against your position and thus help you throw this quote against him/her?
She was convicted of lying to investigators and obstruction of justice, not in insider trading.
Well, thank goodness indeed, if it gets Cookie Monster off the hook.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t.
Just a quick qustion to 2½"
Would you be willing yourself to pull the trigger, flip the switch, hold the axe or whatever way this is supposed to be done?
When? Before Draco?
The OP is not in a position to reply for a month.
Thread closed.
Anyone who wishes to resume the discussion is, of course, free to start a new thread.
Since the OP has been suspended and no one else was advocating his position, I’m going to lock this thread.