Election determines fate of nation

Abdoman · Oct 29, 2004

Sorry, that's not proof. Just because people think they are innocent doesn't mean they are. I am talking scientific proof. DNA. You won't find any.

It doesn't really matter. Children are killed everyday without a trial, without any say, without any chance to live a life.

The facts are that the media is completely biased toward liberal America and I think that Democrats need to dig harder to find the truth.

panzershreck · Oct 29, 2004

the process was not thorough in these cases, nor was evidence linking the cases to the people executed... remember the first and foremost rule of "innocent until proven guilty"? these people had as much a right as you and me for the cases be further investigated through all possibilities... but instead they're dead...

not sure about how the argument "children die everyday" makes it ok for other killing done by us or by others, thats a "rubber-band analogy", you can stretch it to mean a million things... I could justify the deaths of nearly a hundred thousand Iraqis through warfare and lack of medical availability by saying "Saddam killed more", and with Saddam I can say "more died in Cambodia" and with Cambodia I can say "more died in Vietnam" and with Vietnam I can say "Hitler killed more"... are any right? no... should they be looked into and delt with? asap

over the years i have found that whichever side you're on, the media is always biased against your side... when i leaned republican the media was liberal... when i leaned democrat the media was right-wing... but in the end do you really wanna know the truth? the media sucks

they cant report anything without blatant opinions, they all give their opinions, and they're in it for the money first and foremost, if the money comes from reporting republican crap they will print it, if the money comes from democrat crap they will print it... and all the time its a mixture of everything...

EDIT: and at the same time there is the ever-present battle of what do you print? every news piece is welcomed, and if the Democrats give 100 news pieces in a week and the Republicans give 25, then well... you know...

Kirby · Oct 29, 2004

epj3 said:

Absolutely. Most laws related to basic crime were written a LONG time ago, and still are applicable today. The laws were/are written by a group of people (city council, boards, state senate, US Senate) to ensure that multiple opinions are fairly considered and no single person's agenda is favored, and yes, to some degree all laws are a compromise of many beliefs.

The president can try to influence laws, but can't write them per the Constitution. That's the whole purpose of the 3 branches - Judicial, Legislative, Executive - a system of checks and balances. It's fascinating that our founding fathers developed these principles 200 years ago, and they still work very well today.

aNoodle · Oct 29, 2004

Abdoman said:

Wow...so now we've moved onto the 7th page and the morals of abortion and the death penalty. This may be a marathon thread!

When it comes to the death penalty, I'm more of a conservative. In law school I saw that it simply costs way more to prosecute someone to death than to lock em up for life. And with the crazy reversals with the new DNA stuff, it's pretty clear that prosecutors and juries don't always get this stuff right. So I think it's better to err on the side of conservatism and not go for the most extreme measure.

On abortion, I gotta say I'm a total conservative too. The first abortion I was ever aware of in my life was a fraternity brother's girlfriend in undergrad. They were both very good christians, from born again families, the perfect couple, cookie cutter in every way. She got pregnant and the timing just didn't really fit in with their plans of graduating (without a bulge in her stomach) and working a couple years, then getting married and having kids. I considered their decision to abort immoral and a form of birth control. But it turns out they agonized with what to do, spoke to their parents, their church. They ultimately got married several years after the abortion and now they have 3 other kids. She recently told me that that was the most difficult decision she ever made and she will have to live with that for the rest of her life, and answer to her God for it one day.

That's heavy stuff. I can't judge them. Who's to say what may or may not of happened, but I know it's not something many people take lightly. I can't imagine a state entering that equation, forcing their beauracracy and social welfare workers into that. Who wants the government taking over health care?

aNoodle · Oct 29, 2004

Abdoman said:

It does really seem that way these day with such partisanship.

They say at the time of our nation's founding that partisan press was all the rage. People operated their own little presses and sent out their own lefletts--a mixture of facts, opinions, and political rants. Ben Franklin was huge in this business.

Advance decades latter to around the turn of the last century (1900's) and a concept of professional journalism started to take hold. Through the world wars and into much of this past century there were dedicated professionals doing nothing but simply reporting the news. They took themselves really seriously. And with the new television forum people took great pains to make sure the few outlets kept to certain standards of getting out the facts and reporting the news without bias.

Recently with cable and the proliferation of the internet, we're back to the day of the little leefletts again almost. People have specialty channels like Fox News that cater to only their crowd. The old networks still take pains to try to moderate. But now just anybody can throw up a website and pretend it's real.

Some say it's a sad day cuz we're getting to the point where we can't even agree on the facts anymore. To start a conversation, at least we have to know what we're talking about, but nowadays to say we have a budget problem is only met with 'no we don't, i watched fox news or moveon.org and there is no deficit.'

At the end of the day, if you look closely and don't buy into the political spin, you can see what news sources are for real. Read a single article of the NYTimes.com and compare it to the Washington Times.com. Look at the sources quoted, be discriminating, see the name of the journalist writing the story and who they spoke to. Look at the title of the story and ask yourself is this news or is this an agenda. Does it play all to one side? Is it news that is comforting to only one viewpoint or does it ruffle the feathers by pointing out facts recorded on the ground. There is still professionalism in journalism alive and well in America today, you just got to look hard. And if anyone is telling you ignorance is bliss ("Don't try to understand, just feel your way to what's right," or "Don't believe ANYTHING you read), they are trying to control your mind by saying only what they say matters.

indy_85stariones · Oct 30, 2004

epj3 said:

All of my friends would never even think of insulting your mother. The thought of murdering her would never enter our minds. We hold each other accountable for our thoughts and actions. We understand that there exists appropriate consequences for our bad thoughts and behavior. Your mother would love to have us over for dinner.

But Kirby on the other hand, has a friend who has a problem controlling his anger. His friend could easily walk into your mother's place of employment and place 3 bullets into your mother's head -- all the while three of your mother's co-workers witness the whole event, unable to believe what their own eyes have seen.

Epj3, I am curious, what do you believe is the appropriate consequence of Kirby's friend's bad behavior?

And don't bother to tell me that this is a rare and isolated instance. This scenerio actually happened right here in affluent Carmel, IN less than 10 years, ago.

Kirby · Oct 30, 2004

aNoodle said:

Never thought about it that way before - you're right!!!

epj3 · Oct 30, 2004

Abdoman said:

That's why it takes an intellectual person to form a true reasonable opinion on politics. You need to be able to filter through that bias to get your information. Unfortunately FOX makes that nearly impossible.

epj3 · Oct 30, 2004

http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/200...Smarter.Than.The.Average.Citizen-744895.shtml
I watch it every night. It's the only show on TV I make sure not to miss.

indy_85stariones · Oct 30, 2004

Abdoman said:

And what really clouds the issue -- Many times, innocent people confess to murders that they did not commit.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/stories/20010420/topstories/492487.html

But, I believe that Abdoman might agree with me on a few things...

When a person is convicted of murder, the sentence does not automatically translate into the death penalty. Judges are paid to discern when it should be applied.

However, when there is indisputable evidence -- three eyewitnesses, crime committed in open public, victim was a law enforcement official, victim was a government official, etc -- the death penalty must be considered as possible appropriate sentence.

panzershreck said:

Have only 750 people been executed since 1976? Isn't that an average of only 30 per year?

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=330
According to FBI figures, there were only 13,800 murders in 1968 (USA Today's base year), compared with 16,910 thirty years later. The murder rate exploded between 1968 and 1975, when over 20,000 such crimes were committed. There was another surge around 1980 and a further, crack-fueled boom in the early '90s, when almost 25,000 people were killed in 1993. Thankfully, the number has decreased significantly since then.

So what is the average number of murder crimes committed each year? Does 15,000 seem to be a good guess?

Then, 30 people out of a total of 15,000 crimes calculates to a roughly approx. .002% of the sentenced murderers actually receiving the dealth penalty.

The chances of an innocent person being put to death for a crime that he didn't commit seems pretty slim to me.

Kirby · Oct 30, 2004

Here is an example of the problem with the death penalty where circumstancial evidence is used. Paul House was convicted of rape and murder in 1986. Since then DNA evidence has proven that he didn't rape the woman, her husband did. And two witnesses have come forth saying that the husband confessed privately that he murdered her.

http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/lewis/archives/04/09/59361333.shtml

House, in his mid-40s, remains on death row although six of the 15 members of the U. S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday that he is not guilty of the murder for which he was convicted in 1986 and should be freed immediately, according to a report in The New York Times.

Eight other judges on the court said in an appeal decision that House should be executed while another judge said the inmate who was sentenced from Union County should at least be given a new trial.

willchill · Oct 30, 2004

aNoodle said:

Hi aNoodle... i think you write some real thoughtful pieces, and cool car by the way!

Trying to envisage the bureacracy punishing and policing abortion as though it was murder just seems frightening. In the old days very few women were actually sent to jail for abortion. Doctors were simply not allowed, and were in any case unwilling to offer them abortions and they had to resort to back-street clinics. Read Saul Bellow’s “The Adventures of Augie March” for an account of how medical ethics in Depression-era Chicago would rather see an umarried woman die in the street than rectify a botched back-street abortion. Is that really showing concern for the right to life ? And in the old days it was an immense social stigma to have an illegitmate baby at all. We are not talking about social values which bent over backwards to "preserve unborn life." If you were a teenage girl who got pregnant you had to offer your baby for adoption, and stood a good chance of being ostracised from your family anyway. Women were put in a double bind - they couldn't be "single mothers" and they couldn't have abortions, because really it was all about deterring women from pre-marital sex. And that's pretty much what the anti-abortionists are gunning at today. But none of this is to dispute that, as you say, it is a very agonising personal decision.

I've posted some thoughts on this and some more political stuff over at
http://thelandsurveyor.typepad.com/the_land_surveyor/
if you are interested.

aNoodle · Oct 30, 2004

willchill said:

Hi aNoodle... i think you write some real thoughtful pieces, and cool car by the way!

Trying to envisage the bureacracy punishing and policing abortion as though it was murder just seems frightening. In the old days very few women were actually sent to jail for abortion. Doctors were simply not allowed, and were in any case unwilling to offer them abortions and they had to resort to back-street clinics. Read Saul Bellow’s “The Adventures of Augie March” for an account of how medical ethics in Depression-era Chicago would rather see an umarried woman die in the street than rectify a botched back-street abortion. Is that really showing concern for the right to life ? And in the old days it was an immense social stigma to have an illegitmate baby at all. We are not talking about social values which bent over backwards to "preserve unborn life." If you were a teenage girl who got pregnant you had to offer your baby for adoption, and stood a good chance of being ostracised from your family anyway. Women were put in a double bind - they couldn't be "single mothers" and they couldn't have abortions, because really it was all about deterring women from pre-marital sex. And that's pretty much what the anti-abortionists are gunning at today. But none of this is to dispute that, as you say, it is a very agonising personal decision.

I've posted some thoughts on this and some more political stuff over at
http://thelandsurveyor.typepad.com/the_land_surveyor/
if you are interested.

LOL. Thanks willchill. Conservatives are nothing if not practical. You make a fantastically practical point...who would want big government intervention into health care returning us to the days of coat hanger and back ally abortions. Yikes!

I'm going to give your site a read. Welcome to the board. [welcome]

indy_85stariones · Oct 31, 2004

indy_85stariones said:

OK, I will finish my thoughts and answer my own question.

Backing up a little bit, I am very disappointed about what happened in New York and Washington DC on Sept 11th and the resulting events afterwards. I am saddened by the loss of lives here in the U.S. and the loss of lives overseas -- both in our military and foreign civilians. But my disappointment lies with the lost opportunities made available after Republicans obtained control of both the House of Rep and Presidency in year 2000. I can't remember the last time this situation occurred. I am fairly sure that the Democrats had control of the House under Bush Sr. I am defintely sure that the Democrats had control of the House under Reagan.

What opportunites were lost? The time and energy used to declare a War on Terror could have been used to refine our Economic Policy, and our reforms on Education and Health Care. Even opportunites were lost here in our discussion board. Instead of narrowing our discussion to Bush's shortcomings with his Exit Strategy in Iraq, our discussion could have been about other things. Things like refinement of our tax system and refinement of our Judicial System.

When I read in John Kerry's website about the injustices in our tax system, all of us could roll up our sleeves and discuss the specific areas in our tax system that aren't fair to the lower income earners, aren't fair to the middle income earners, and aren't fair to the rest. Rather than just speaking in general terms -- Bush's Tax Cuts only benefit the Rich -- we could discuss details like whether the $76,000 income ceiling for Social Security and Medicare should be raised.

The same thing happened here with our Judicial System. All of us jumped back to discussing the current events in Iraq.

All of this being said, I would like to finish my thoughts on this topic -- What should happen to Kirby's friend in this scenerio?

Obviously, the Death Penalty could be an appropriate consequence for his action. It would be an effective deterant. Kirby's friend would be dead, so he would never become a repeat offender. Other people having thoughts about murdering someone would have to re-think their thoughts (Uh-oh, if I kill someone, I may end up being killed myself), before actually following thru with their crime.

I would like to introduce another variable -- forgiveness.

The judge sentences Kirby's friend to the death penalty, with one year probation. This would give Epj3 time to think about the loss of his mother and Kirby's friend to think about the crime that he committed.

Kirby's friend would be allowed to perform an act of retribution. That is, he is given an opportunty to help Epj3 recover from the loss of his mother. This could be as simple as offering to pay expenses to maintain her grave at the cemetary -- maybe set up a fund which family members could draw from to pay for flowers. This could be as complex as helping to pay for Epj3's college education.

One key variable here is Kirby's friend's regret and remorse for the pain that he inflicted into Epj3's life. The other variable is Epj3's ability to forgive him.

To complete this scenerio, a year later, both Kirby's friend and Epj3's family return back to the courtroom. Remember, Kirby's friend has already been sentenced to the death penalty.

The judge evaluates the sincerity of Kirby's friend's regret and remorse. In other words, has Kirby's friend asked for forgiveness thru his actions.

If Kirby's friend has not demonstrated any actions seeking for forgiveness, the Judge orders the execution of the death penalty. Epj3 has no say in this, because a person has to ask for forgiveness before his victim can be allowed to forgive him.

If the Judge discerns that Kirby's friend has demonstrated any action of regret and remorse. the Judge turns to Epj3 (and his family) and asks whether they forgive him for taking his mother's life.

Epj3 (and his family) have the option to determine the fate of Kirby's friend's life. If he is able to forgive him, Kirby's friend can return back to civilized life.
If he is not able to forgive him, Kirby's friend's sentence is executed.

What do all of you think about this scererio ever happening in real life?

Kirby · Oct 31, 2004

indy_85stariones said:

You know what's uncanny about this thread? [80?] I had two friends in Jr High School, that I distanced myself from in High School, who ARE CONVICTED MURDERERS. After high school they got involved in drug dealing, and murdered a competitor. One was convicted of murder and IS ON DEATH ROW at Rockview State Prison in Pennsylvania. The other was convicted of conspiracy, and served 10 years and is out now.

The murder was witnessed by two other former friends, who were there but didn't know what was going to happen. They thought they were going to rough the guy up, not kill him. They turned State's Evidence as a plea bargain which sealed the case.

I had not associated with them for almost 7 years when this happened. The father of the conspirator called me before the trial and asked me to testify for my former friend as a character witness. I told him he didn't want me to testify - I knew of too many things his son had done in high school, and I would not commit purjury for him.

Section_8 · Nov 1, 2004

Only 1 more day to go until everyone can start talking about BMW's again!

Tom you should open a political forum here, I was surprised at first with all the political discussions but it's occurred to me that we probably get some of the brighter folks here to discuss cars, and with that they bring their views of the world too (which is a good thing!)

To everyone who's posted in this thread, or one of the multitudes of others - thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas, weather heated or not, it's good to hear all the viewpoints. Thank goodness we live in a country where we can bitch at each other, complain about politics (and each other), rant and rave and throw a fit - and still get along fine. (after Nov 2nd..) [:D]

Election determines fate of nation

Abdoman

2

panzershreck

Member

Kirby

2

aNoodle

1000 Post Club

aNoodle

1000 Post Club

indy_85stariones

New Member

Kirby

2

epj3

Senior Member

epj3

Senior Member

indy_85stariones

New Member

Kirby

2

willchill

New Member

aNoodle

1000 Post Club

indy_85stariones

New Member

Kirby

2

Section_8

2