And citizens who are able to legally obtain and carry firearms in one place are forced to extensively research local gun laws anywhere they go in order to avoid becoming criminals merely by virtue of, say, driving through some place with more restrictive gun laws. State concealed carry reciprocity laws help, but they don't solve the basic issue that 2nd Amendment rights are seen as mutable rather than absolute in many jurisdictions.Honestly, I've never seen how or why states feel like they can ban firearms. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't see anything about concealed weapons, or WMDS, but other than that the intent seems pretty clear. If you want to get rid of guns (in a legal sense, that is), you have to change the Constitution. If you can't muster the votes to do that, too bad (and no, I don't own a gun. I just think the law is the law in this case).
I concur. It seems to me that protecting fundamental human rights (like self defense and the means thereto) is a legitimate function of the post 14th amendment federal government.
I don't recall agreeing with you this many times in a row. ;)
|
Since I may actually be the only poster here who has an "insider" perspective on the prison system, seriously, I think life without parole, Federal ADX style (solitary, zero human contact, 23 hours in the cell a day, one hour for rec in a 10 x 10 room with an opening in the roof to let in sun, read your mail off a tv screen, no writing materials, no newspapers, only closed circuit educational programming) is the nastiest thing you can to do a person. Perfect for murdering bastards, rapists, pedophiles and douchebags like Bernard Maddoff.
I did sixty days in solitary and about crawled out of my skin.
:)
I think Kirth's argumentation would be modified by changing the current harsh realities of people being imprisoned for victimless crimes and prisoners being raped, tortured, brutalized, getting HIV, and being killed while incarcerated.
You're absolutely right. Also, if we had any reasonbale claim that prisons were in the business of rehabilitation, I'd abandon my stance immediately, and with great relief.
The fact that these people committed a crime (say murder) is logically distinct from your "greatest good for the most people" argument. Either we're killing them to punish them for what they've done (murder), or we're killing them to prevent them from doing it again. You can say we're doing both, but that doesn't strengthen either argument; the reasons remain distinct. That is, if you wish to justify execution based on preventing future crimes, then that justification must stand on it's own; we can't say "plus he had it coming."
I'm curious: Do we agree that just because 80% of the members of a group have a trait doesn't mean that a given member of the group is 80% likely to have the trait? If so, since we can't tell the would-be repeat offenders from the others, you're advocating killing everyone in the group, arguing that society as a whole would be better off. Do I understand your position correctly?
The sort of calculus you're performing wreaks all sorts of havoc. For example, how do you feel about forced sterilization for people likely (say 50% likely; Autosomal dominant inheritance) to pass on a debilitating genetic disease? The sort of disease that guarantees the victim will suffer horribly and die young, all while costing society hundreds of thousands of dollars? Dollars which could have prevented starvation and communicable disease in hundreds of citizens of poor nations? Such a policy seems to fulfill your "most good for the most people" criteria.
What about forced organ donation? If there is a 90% chance to save five or more lives for people on organ donation lists by killing someone (and, quite literally, taking their "stuff" =D), doesn't that also meet your criteria?
The proof is in the pudding, though. If you've never killed someone, there is no possible way for me to say "you are X% likely to." The two events (an initial murder, and a subsequent one) are linked, whether you care to admit it or not. I've also stated that in some circumstances, in which the jury agrees there are extenuating circumstances, the sentence would be altered; I'm not in favor of mandatory sentences, only in useful guidelines.
Your forced sterlization question will get you an answer you won't like: I'm in favor of universal contraception. You have to get a license to drive; raising a kid is even harder. If our expertise in genetics was advanced enough to say "your kid has a 90% chance of being born a vegetable and living years in nothing but screaming agony" (and, no, it's not that good at this point), then, yeah, I'd say deny those two people a license to procreate together. But that's just me.
Your organ donor scenario fails, because I can get the same outcome by making everyone an organ donor upon death -- no more cards needed. Then we wouldn't need to kill a live guy to harvest his organs -- we'd have an endless supply from people who had no further use for theirs, and would be in no way harmed by their donation.
|
|
I think Kirth's argumentation would be modified by changing the current harsh realities of people being imprisoned for victimless crimes and prisoners being raped, tortured, brutalized, getting HIV, and being killed while incarcerated.You're absolutely right. Also, if we had any reasonbale claim that prisons were in the business of rehabilitation, I'd abandon my stance immediately, and with great relief.
Rehabilitation? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
No, seriously, bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Rehabilitation? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
That's what I'm sayin'.
Why does this (license to procreate) make me think of Starship Troopers?
EDIT: Crap! Double ninja'ed!
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You've left out the first third of the sentence, though. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gun control, but I wish the Framers had left off the stuff about the well-regulated militia that you've failed to include, which does tend to confuse the issue.
Honestly, I think people who think our fine convicted felons are actual human people should live where I lived for seven years...
You're not an actual human? Wait, don't answer that. I know you're a cylon.
|
|
Honestly, I think people who think our fine convicted felons are actual human people should live where I lived for seven years...You're not an actual human? Wait, don't answer that. I know you're a cylon.
Maybe 20% of the people I was locked up with may have been redeemable humans. Be very afraid the other 80% will be (or have been) released...
Maybe 20% of the people I was locked up with may have been redeemable humans. Be very afraid the other 80% will be (or have been) released...
I'd've already executed them, but then again, I'm a meany-head.
|
|
Maybe 20% of the people I was locked up with may have been redeemable humans. Be very afraid the other 80% will be (or have been) released...I'd've already executed them, but then again, I'm a meany-head.
I ran into a guy whom I was locked up with on the bus the other day. He told me the Vallucos (dudes from the Valley) stabbed two Corpitos (dudes from Corpus Christie)(tangos, for those keeping score) to death with broken broom handles. Over three porn mags.
Yeah. We should feel sorry for these dudes.
The proof is in the pudding, though. If you've never killed someone, there is no possible way for me to say "you are X% likely to." The two events (an initial murder, and a subsequent one) are linked, whether you care to admit it or not. I've also stated that in some circumstances, in which the jury agrees there are extenuating circumstances, the sentence would be altered; I'm not in favor of mandatory sentences, only in useful guidelines.
I freely admit there is a correlation; that isn't the issue. And your "initial murder" makes much more sense as an indicator of future behavior. It does not, however, contribute to the justification for the killing on it's own; it exists solely as a means for predicting future behavior, and so I still think you're advocating preemptive murder. But I think we understand each other's positions, and we're not likely to agree.
Your forced sterlization question will get you an answer you won't like: I'm in favor of universal contraception. You have to get a license to drive; raising a kid is even harder. If our expertise in genetics was advanced enough to say "your kid has a 90% chance of being born a vegetable and living years in nothing but screaming agony" (and, no, it's not that good at this point), then, yeah, I'd say deny those two people a license to procreate together. But that's just me.
Actually, your answer is logically consistent, and so it doesn't bother me at all. :)
Your organ donor scenario fails, because I can get the same outcome by making everyone an organ donor upon death -- no more cards needed. Then we wouldn't need to kill a live guy to harvest his organs -- we'd have an endless supply from people who had no further use for theirs, and would be in no way harmed by their donation.
If killing one to save five is justified, as you seem to be arguing, then you're just avoiding the point. So, supposing you can't get the same outcome by forced donation on death, would killing followed by mandatory organ donation be justified? Yes, I'm aware that's hypothetical, but so are the future crimes you're willing to execute people to prevent. :)
Maybe 20% of the people I was locked up with may have been redeemable humans. Be very afraid the other 80% will be (or have been) released...I'd've already executed them, but then again, I'm a meany-head.
What is to be gained by making a caricature of what others are saying?
What has gotten into you lately? :)
Honestly, I think people who think our fine convicted felons are actual human people should live where I lived for seven years...
At the risk of venturing into territory I know nothing about (never been to prison); aren't you a convicted felon? I'm pretty sure you qualify as an "actual human." ;-) Wouldn't I be remiss to start drawing conclusions about you, or in assuming that you're "one of the good ones?"
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."You've left out the first third of the sentence, though. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gun control, but I wish the Framers had left off the stuff about the well-regulated militia that you've failed to include, which does tend to confuse the issue.
Does it really? It seems rather incidental to me. ("This is a right; the why of it, while possibly interesting, doesn't really matter"). But ambiguity is one of the "nice" features of language. :)
|
|
Honestly, I think people who think our fine convicted felons are actual human people should live where I lived for seven years...At the risk of venturing into territory I know nothing about (never been to prison); aren't you a convicted felon?
I am. And, frankly, everyone who has an opinion about us who isn't us, at least an opinion that is all warm-hearted and sympathetic is, well, naive.
Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about if you think most people who go to prison for violent crimes can be redeemed. And pedophiles and rapists? Seriously, dude, it's a revolving door. The rate of recidivism would scare you. But keep feeling bad for the poor pedophiles and rapists, and not their future victims.
I am. And, frankly, everyone who has an opinion about us who isn't us, at least an opinion that is all warm-hearted and sympathetic is, well, naive.
I can't argue with you about being naive; everything I know about prison is from HBO. :P
Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about if you think most people who go to prison for violent crimes can be redeemed. And pedophiles and rapists? Seriously, dude, it's a revolving door. The rate of recidivism would scare you. But keep feeling bad for the poor pedophiles and rapists, and not their future victims.
Whoa! I didn't say I felt bad for them, or that I believed everyone can be redeemed. I just said I don't advocate executing them. I think you're reading a little too much of the liberal party line into what I'm saying.
If hard prison time is truly worse than death (and I have no reason to doubt you), then why not give the lifers the choice? That way the entire issue of murder just goes away. If you choose not to live in prison, here's a painless way to kill yourself and spare everyone the trouble.
|
|
Honestly, I think people who think our fine convicted felons are actual human people should live where I lived for seven years...At the risk of venturing into territory I know nothing about (never been to prison); aren't you a convicted felon? I'm pretty sure you qualify as an "actual human." ;-) Wouldn't I be remiss to start drawing conclusions about you, or in assuming that you're "one of the good ones?"
Never make assumptions about people who have been locked up. I went to prison because I like money and think adults can do what they want with their bodies, not because I like killing, raping or molesting. And I have enough sense to know I don't care for prison. But, considering how many people go back, a lot of people seem to enjoy living in a zoo.
Those are some seriously screwed up and dangerous people.
Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about if you think most people who go to prison for violent crimes can be redeemed. And pedophiles and rapists? Seriously, dude, it's a revolving door. The rate of recidivism would scare you. But keep feeling bad for the poor pedophiles and rapists, and not their future victims.
The naivete that I saw in my crim class probably wouldn't stagger you, because I'm sure you've already heard all the weepy, do-good b!@%@!&$ emitted by the poor socially conscious sensitives who lurk through such classes.
|
|
I am. And, frankly, everyone who has an opinion about us who isn't us, at least an opinion that is all warm-hearted and sympathetic is, well, naive.
Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about if you think most people who go to prison for violent crimes can be redeemed. And pedophiles and rapists? Seriously, dude, it's a revolving door. The rate of recidivism would scare you. But keep feeling bad for the poor pedophiles and rapists, and not their future victims.
Whoa! I didn't say I felt bad for them, or that I believed everyone can be redeemed. I just said I don't advocate executing them. I think you're reading a little too much of the liberal party line into what I'm saying.
If hard prison time is truly worse than death (and I have no reason to doubt you), then why not give the lifers the choice? That way the entire issue of murder just goes away. If you choose not to live in prison, here's a painless way to kill yourself and spare everyone the trouble.
I would give all pedophiles, rapists and murderers life, in solitary, no chance of parole, and once a year ask them if they want a hot shot.
I can agree with your stance there.
But letting rapists, pedophiles and murderers out? That is pure insanity.
|
|
The naivete that I saw in my crim class probably wouldn't stagger you, because I'm sure you've already heard all the weepy, do-good b@#%&&!% emitted by the poor socially conscious sensitives who lurk through such classes.
Sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about if you think most people who go to prison for violent crimes can be redeemed. And pedophiles and rapists? Seriously, dude, it's a revolving door. The rate of recidivism would scare you. But keep feeling bad for the poor pedophiles and rapists, and not their future victims.
Nah, I work from the assumption most people are idiots, and allow myself to be pleasantly surprised to find some aren't.
Easier that way, really.
:)
Never make assumptions about people who have been locked up. I went to prison because I like money and think adults can do what they want with their bodies, not because I like killing, raping or molesting. And I have enough sense to know I don't care for prison. But, considering how many people go back, a lot of people seem to enjoy living in a zoo.
Those are some seriously screwed up and dangerous people.
I don't doubt that for one second.
But isn't "making assumptions about people who have been locked up" what you're doing, at least with respect to anyone you haven't met personally? I'm sure many of them are beyond redemption; I never said otherwise. I just don't think the death penalty is the answer.
BTW Houston, we don't often agree, but I do respect you, and didn't mean to suggest I actually believe horrible things about you. I was just making the point that if I judged you solely by your legal history (convicted felon), I probably would have made bad assumptions.
For the record, if you're ever in AZ and need a place to crash, look me up (seriously). I'm aaron dot motta at gmail dot com.
I would give all pedophiles, rapists and murderers life, in solitary, no chance of parole, and once a year ask them if they want a hot shot.
Personally, I favor forced labor.
I would give all pedophiles, rapists and murderers life, in solitary, no chance of parole, and once a year ask them if they want a hot shot.
I can agree with your stance there.
But letting rapists, pedophiles and murderers out? That is pure insanity.
What about, say, crimes of passion? My wife comes home to find me in bed with her best friend, loses it, and shoots me. I die. She's a murder by most definitions, but surely she could someday be released without being a danger to society?
As for serial murderers, rapists, etc.? Yeah, let 'em rot, or die if they want. Just don't *kill* them.
|
|
Never make assumptions about people who have been locked up. I went to prison because I like money and think adults can do what they want with their bodies, not because I like killing, raping or molesting. And I have enough sense to know I don't care for prison. But, considering how many people go back, a lot of people seem to enjoy living in a zoo.
Those are some seriously screwed up and dangerous people.
I don't doubt that for one second.
But isn't "making assumptions about people who have been locked up" what you're doing, at least with respect to anyone you haven't met personally? I'm sure many of them are beyond redemption; I never said otherwise. I just don't think the death penalty is the answer.
BTW Houston, we don't often agree, but I do respect you, and didn't mean to suggest I actually believe horrible things about you. I was just making the point that if I judged you solely by your legal history (convicted felon), I probably would have made bad assumptions.
For the record, if you're ever in AZ and need a place to crash, look me up (seriously). I'm aaron dot motta at gmail dot com.
Dude, I expect to have to earn people's trust after being locked up. Part of the package for deciding being George Jung Lite, after all. I don't begrudge anyone's skepticism with regards to my worthiness as a person. I actually enjoy the challenge of disproving assumptions about myself and showing that a degree of redemption is possible.
I just seriously wish people would consider that there are people for whom redemption just isn't possible.
And thanks for the offer of a crash pad, I've always wanted to check Arizona out, a few friends of mine have lived there and told me good things about it :)
|
|
I would give all pedophiles, rapists and murderers life, in solitary, no chance of parole, and once a year ask them if they want a hot shot.
I can agree with your stance there.
But letting rapists, pedophiles and murderers out? That is pure insanity.
What about, say, crimes of passion? My wife comes home to find me in bed with her best friend, loses it, and shoots me. I die. She's a murder by most definitions, but surely she could someday be released without being a danger to society?
As for serial murderers, rapists, etc.? Yeah, let 'em rot, or die if they want. Just don't *kill* them.
I'd leave it up to the victim's family. If executing the person who killed their loved one makes it easier to go on with their lives, I wouldn't want to begrudge them that. Especially bastards who torture and rape their victim before killing them.
Sometimes, I think third parties do not have the perspective, or have too much compassion for the wrong party in a crime scenario. Of course, if you don't want to get executed, go kill people in Massachusetts or Canada, not Texas, for instance.
I just seriously wish people would consider that there are people for whom redemption just isn't possible.
I can't disagree with this, but how can the legal system/government tell the difference between people who can be redeemed and those who can't? Maybe for some people the chance really is zero, but I can't be in favor of executing everyone just to make sure about the unredeemable ones.
And I pretty much agree with everything bugleyman has said, and even the way he's argued it - it's almost creepy even - get out of my head!! :)
I'm certainly not arguing that these particular criminals should have an easy time of it, and certainly don't think early parole or anything should be an option.
Your description of solitary makes me wonder if we couldn't solve the prison overcrowding problem (and other problems) by giving out much shorter sentences, but all of them served in solitary. No prison grapevine, no learning from other criminals, no institutionalization. And since the time is harder, the shorter sentences cut down on the number of inmates at any one time.
edit: I don't mean shorter sentences necessarily for things like murder, rape, etc. But I would be curious to see if there is any difference between 20 years and 25 years in solitary....
... Of course, if you don't want to get executed, go kill people in Massachusetts or Canada, not Texas, for instance.
HEY!
|
|
... Of course, if you don't want to get executed, go kill people in Massachusetts or Canada, not Texas, for instance.HEY!
My favorite "State of Texas telling a foreign government to go eff itself" story.
A Canadian citizen was sentenced to death for killing an 80-something year old woman for her welfare check. the Canadian government petitioned Texas to commute the sentence. The Texas government basically replied "if he didn't want lethal injection, he should have stayed home and killed old women for their welfare checks".
:)
|
|
I just seriously wish people would consider that there are people for whom redemption just isn't possible.
I can't disagree with this, but how can the legal system/government tell the difference between people who can be redeemed and those who can't? Maybe for some people the chance really is zero, but I can't be in favor of executing everyone just to make sure about the unredeemable ones.
And I pretty much agree with everything bugleyman has said, and even the way he's argued it - it's almost creepy even - get out of my head!! :)
I'm certainly not arguing that these particular criminals should have an easy time of it, and certainly don't think early parole or anything should be an option.
Your description of solitary makes me wonder if we couldn't solve the prison overcrowding problem (and other problems) by giving out much shorter sentences, but all of them served in solitary. No prison grapevine, no learning from other criminals, no institutionalization. And since the time is harder, the shorter sentences cut down on the number of inmates at any one time.
edit: I don't mean shorter sentences necessarily for things like murder, rape, etc. But I would be curious to see if there is any difference between 20 years and 25 years in solitary....
Eh, after 20 years, you'd be so bat-[expletive deleted as to not offend the kiddies] crazy, it wouldn't matter. Like I said, 60 days of being locked in an 8x12 room with no reading material, no radio, no real contact, almost drove me nuts.
...
:)
HAHA. That's cool. Sometimes whiny Canadian liberals really piss me off.
So I'm curious Kirth: For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that we are justified acting against preemptively against probable repeat offenders. Why not lifetime incarceration for those deemed too dangerous to release? If it's an issue of mercy, give the incarcerated the choice to end their own lives whenever they wish (which I think everyone should have, anyway, but that's another story).
Eh, after 20 years, you'd be so bat-[expletive deleted as to not offend the kiddies] crazy, it wouldn't matter. Like I said, 60 days of being locked in an 8x12 room with no reading material, no radio, no real contact, almost drove me nuts.
I just seriously wish people would consider that there are people for whom redemption just isn't possible.
I can't disagree with this, but how can the legal system/government tell the difference between people who can be redeemed and those who can't? Maybe for some people the chance really is zero, but I can't be in favor of executing everyone just to make sure about the unredeemable ones.
And I pretty much agree with everything bugleyman has said, and even the way he's argued it - it's almost creepy even - get out of my head!! :)
I'm certainly not arguing that these particular criminals should have an easy time of it, and certainly don't think early parole or anything should be an option.
Your description of solitary makes me wonder if we couldn't solve the prison overcrowding problem (and other problems) by giving out much shorter sentences, but all of them served in solitary. No prison grapevine, no learning from other criminals, no institutionalization. And since the time is harder, the shorter sentences cut down on the number of inmates at any one time.
edit: I don't mean shorter sentences necessarily for things like murder, rape, etc. But I would be curious to see if there is any difference between 20 years and 25 years in solitary....
Hmm - well, then maybe the state can save a lot of money by reducing sentences, or I suppose it could keep them the same and release insaniacs back into society, which might just bring me around to Kirth's point of view.. :)
|
|
Eh, after 20 years, you'd be so bat-[expletive deleted as to not offend the kiddies] crazy, it wouldn't matter. Like I said, 60 days of being locked in an 8x12 room with no reading material, no radio, no real contact, almost drove me nuts.
I just seriously wish people would consider that there are people for whom redemption just isn't possible.
I can't disagree with this, but how can the legal system/government tell the difference between people who can be redeemed and those who can't? Maybe for some people the chance really is zero, but I can't be in favor of executing everyone just to make sure about the unredeemable ones.
And I pretty much agree with everything bugleyman has said, and even the way he's argued it - it's almost creepy even - get out of my head!! :)
I'm certainly not arguing that these particular criminals should have an easy time of it, and certainly don't think early parole or anything should be an option.
Your description of solitary makes me wonder if we couldn't solve the prison overcrowding problem (and other problems) by giving out much shorter sentences, but all of them served in solitary. No prison grapevine, no learning from other criminals, no institutionalization. And since the time is harder, the shorter sentences cut down on the number of inmates at any one time.
edit: I don't mean shorter sentences necessarily for things like murder, rape, etc. But I would be curious to see if there is any difference between 20 years and 25 years in solitary....
Almost?
So I'm curious Kirth: For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that we are justified acting against preemptively against probable repeat offenders. Why not lifetime incarceration for those deemed too dangerous to release? If it's an issue of mercy, give the incarcerated the choice to end their own lives whenever they wish (which I think everyone should have, anyway, but that's another story).
Part of my issue with prisons is the fact that they're a large industry. I firmy believe that possession laws were tightened, and sentences lengthened, during the "war on drugs" in order to maintain and expand what is in essence a major sector of the economy. I believe that we're seeing the same thing right now, with respect to the massive expansion of definitions for "piracy" (do you have a song from Kazaa on your computer?) and "sex offender" (potentially, a guy who pees in his own backyard, if a neighbor sees him) and "child pornography" (picture of your own kid in the bathtub = hard time). The U.S. has by far the most prisoners per capita of any nation on Earth. That bothers me.
Mandatory life sentences without parole would only encourage further expansion of that industry -- every conviction for a major crime would feed the machine for potentially 60 years, instead of 5 or 10 or 20.
If this were not the case, I'd agree with you 100%. Alternatively, if we were able to actually rehabilitate prisoners, I'd be in favor of sentences vs. executions. As it is, it seems like we've painted ourselves into a corner.
P.S. When I call myself a "meanie-head" to houstonderek, you have to understand the context. As his DM, I seem to have an inordinate talent for killing off his characters. Hopefully you can understand, then, that I was joking with him with that remark (which is why I replied directly to him with it), rather than mocking anyone else.
Sadly, some rehabilitation program are attacked for reasons other than not being successful.
Church-state separationist groups who say the biblically based program amounts to a violation of the Constitution have called the study baseless, arguing that it should have compared graduates of the program to ex-prisoners who received secular counseling.
"This is junk science driven by right-wing ideology," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The Washington-based watchdog group has filed suit against the Prison Fellowship program in Iowa, saying the prison there gives special privileges to program participants and uses state funding for a program whose goal is completely religious.
"Our primary concern is that it's not right to have government funds to pay for people's religious conversions," Lynn said.
Notice the argument isn't that it wasn't successful, it was that it was probably not as successful as a secular program.
Lynn said Americans United will fight any attempt to federally fund religious rehabilitation for prisoners.
"Expanding the program to Muslims does not change the constitutional problem," he said. "Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for people's religious conversion."
So anti-religious spending that they would like to see successful programs not be used to help people.
Notice the argument isn't that it wasn't successful, it was that it was probably not as successful as a secular program.
Wait... we have a LESS successful program, that also requires conversion to some religion, and you want taxpayers to fund that over a more effective secular alternative? I'm not following you.
Notice the argument isn't that it wasn't successful, it was that it was probably not as successful as a secular program.Wait... we have a LESS successful program, that also requires conversion to some religion, and you want taxpayers to fund that over a more effective secular alternative? I'm not following you.
You might ask houstonderek how long those "conversions" and that rehabilitation lasts, when those people are paroled.
Well, I imagine but I don't know if it is a fact, that religious programs are probably cheaper to run (hire a minister versus a college professor). But that wasn't exactly my point. My point was while a secular program MIGHT be better, and we don't know that for a fact since as they point out it might be nice to compare the two, a religious program is better than NO PROGRAM. What is that the people in congress keep saying, "The Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the Good." or some such.
It is like going to a community of starving people and a group is handing out ham sandwiches and a vegan comes in says, "You know that isn't very healthy, you should be feeding them health food." And then walks off. A ham sandwich is better than no food, even though there may be better foods. If those better foods aren't present, feed 'em what you got.
|
|
Notice the argument isn't that it wasn't successful, it was that it was probably not as successful as a secular program.Wait... we have a LESS successful program, that also requires conversion to some religion, and you want taxpayers to fund that over a more effective secular alternative? I'm not following you.
You might ask houstonderek how long those "conversions" and that rehabilitation lasts, when those people are paroled.
Well, I imagine but I don't know if it is a fact, that religious programs are probably cheaper to run (hire a minister versus a college professor). But that wasn't exactly my point. My point was while a secular program MIGHT be better, and we don't know that for a fact since as they point out it might be nice to compare the two, a religious program is better than NO PROGRAM. What is that the people in congress keep saying, "The Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the Good." or some such.
It is like going to a community of starving people and a group is handing out ham sandwiches and a vegan comes in says, "You know that isn't very healthy, you should be feeding them health food." And then walks off. A ham sandwich is better than no food, even though there may be better foods. If those better foods aren't present, feed 'em what you got.
So if gun control can be proved to prevent crime, you'd support it and ignore the fact that it's against the Second amendment? Why does the Constitution only count when it supports your side's position?
So if gun control can be proved to prevent crime, you'd support it and ignore the fact that it's against the Second amendment? Why does the Constitution only count when it supports your side's position?Notice the argument isn't that it wasn't successful, it was that it was probably not as successful as a secular program.Wait... we have a LESS successful program, that also requires conversion to some religion, and you want taxpayers to fund that over a more effective secular alternative? I'm not following you.
You might ask houstonderek how long those "conversions" and that rehabilitation lasts, when those people are paroled.
Well, I imagine but I don't know if it is a fact, that religious programs are probably cheaper to run (hire a minister versus a college professor). But that wasn't exactly my point. My point was while a secular program MIGHT be better, and we don't know that for a fact since as they point out it might be nice to compare the two, a religious program is better than NO PROGRAM. What is that the people in congress keep saying, "The Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the Good." or some such.
It is like going to a community of starving people and a group is handing out ham sandwiches and a vegan comes in says, "You know that isn't very healthy, you should be feeding them health food." And then walks off. A ham sandwich is better than no food, even though there may be better foods. If those better foods aren't present, feed 'em what you got.
I'm not sure if I follow you here, what does that have to do with what I said?
Also, since crime has been around longer than guns have and many crimes are commited without the presence of a gun (robbery vs. armed robbery), I think the effort to prove that removing guns would eliminate crime would ultimately prove futile.
|
|
So if gun control can be proved to prevent crime, you'd support it and ignore the fact that it's against the Second amendment? Why does the Constitution only count when it supports your side's position?Notice the argument isn't that it wasn't successful, it was that it was probably not as successful as a secular program.Wait... we have a LESS successful program, that also requires conversion to some religion, and you want taxpayers to fund that over a more effective secular alternative? I'm not following you.
You might ask houstonderek how long those "conversions" and that rehabilitation lasts, when those people are paroled.
Well, I imagine but I don't know if it is a fact, that religious programs are probably cheaper to run (hire a minister versus a college professor). But that wasn't exactly my point. My point was while a secular program MIGHT be better, and we don't know that for a fact since as they point out it might be nice to compare the two, a religious program is better than NO PROGRAM. What is that the people in congress keep saying, "The Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the Good." or some such.
It is like going to a community of starving people and a group is handing out ham sandwiches and a vegan comes in says, "You know that isn't very healthy, you should be feeding them health food." And then walks off. A ham sandwich is better than no food, even though there may be better foods. If those better foods aren't present, feed 'em what you got.
I'm not sure if I follow you here, what does that have to do with what I said?
Also, since crime has been around longer than guns have and many crimes are commited without the presence of a gun (robbery vs. armed robbery), I think the effort to prove that removing guns would eliminate crime would ultimately prove futile.
What does it have to do with what you said? Well, on the one hand you're saying that because this is effective, it should be used even if it is not Constitutional owing to the first amendment. I asked if, for a similar level of effectiveness and proof, you'd accept gun control, even though it is not constitutional owing to the second amendment.
What does it have to do with what you said? Well, on the one hand you're saying that because this is effective, it should be used even if it is not Constitutional owing to the first amendment. I asked if, for a similar level of effectiveness and proof, you'd accept gun control, even though it is not constitutional owing to the second amendment.
Ah, I see, you shifted gears on me, so I didn't quite follow. Ok, well just to be clear, I personally have no problem with reasonable restrictions on arms, I don't believe the writers of the constitution were considering everyone owning cannons for example. I think making it illegal to own any firearms is a bad idea, as is forcing people to pay 3rd parties to store their firearms.
Well, I think we have to recognize that the Ammendments 1 and 2 are slightly different. For example, the first ammendment is a bit of double-edged sword. On the one hand, the [federal] government isn't suppose to write laws establishing religion, on the other hand they are not to prohibit the free exercise of it either. Now prisons are special situation, every single thing in there is controled by the government, from the underwear and toilet paper to the types of reading material made available. So if they provide bibles, for example, are they "establishing religion" or are they "not prohibiting the free exercise" of it?
Certainly we already restrict the rights of prisoners, for example, their 2nd ammendment rights, so I suppose we can argue that restricting their 1st ammendment rights (prohibiting the free exercise) would have precedent (not to mention how some religous practices are already restricted to the public at large).
I guess, ultimately, I personally just don't see providing religious organization the means to reach out to prisoners as being an "establishment" issue. The religions aren't being created to serve the government, and in the case of multiple religious organizations, there isn't a clear preference for one religion or another. Another consideration is I don't think the government should be preference AGAINST religious organizations. If the government would give aid to a secular organization trying to rehabilate prisoners, then it should give support to a religious organization trying to do the same, otherwise the government is discriminating on the basis of religion.
To put that in game terms, it is like the DM being so concerned that the group thinks he is favoring his girlfriend, that he makes everything bad happen to her character. In that case, his behavior doesn't prove he is unbiased.
**EDIT**
Anyway, my original point was that there are programs, both secular and religious that do have a good track records rehabiliting (at least some types) prisoners, in the US and abroad. So if someone really cares about rehabiliting prisoners, they should support these programs. Certainly if we could do it more effectively, cheaper, and consistently with secular organizations only, I would say great. But if that is not really a possibility, then let us not try to stop those trying to help, especially when it is not 100% clear if that help would be unconstitutional. Also, as has been said in the past, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Okay, here's something I'd like to get some info from conservatives on. Guns.I hate to say this yet again, but personally I think "it depends." Canada has stricter gun control than the U.S. by far and roughly 1/10 the murder rate. Obviously something is working there for them -- whether it's gun control or something else (too cold to shoot each other?), I have no idea. But firearms are already widespread here in Texas -- not only would people not give them up, but the people would be absolutely right to refuse to do so. Given the current ubiquitousness of firearms here, it would be downright suicidal to be the only person in the state without one. Gun control at this point, in this place, would be criminally stupid. So... OK for Canada, not OK for Texas? I think you'd have to make a case-by-case basis for each location, also factoring in how they relate to one another (almost all of the guns that are used for murders in Canada were originally obtained legally in the U.S., for example).
Its certainly possible. One of the things you can do is add assaults to murder in many comparable area's of Canada and the United States and you'll find that the numbers are very similar number. The difference, so the theory goes, is that it is hard to kill some one with 'put up your dukes'.
That said you can find other scenarios as well. Many US area's have far less assaults and murders combined then comparable Canadian areas (though they almost always still have more total murders) and its possible to explain this by presuming that people get into less confrontations when the end result of a confrontation has a high probability of people pulling out guns and shooting at each other.
Hopefully something meaningful will come of this.
We need to fix our budget. Then we need to fix our debt. And we liberals might not like it, but balancing the budget REQUIRES cutting entitlements (Medicare especially). Conservatives might not like it, but we also need to raise taxes, at least until we put a big dent in the debt. (Psst. It's Ok; even Reagan did it).
If we don't don't get this done, we're all going to crash and burn together, probably arguing all the way. :(
I like how every single comment blames Obama for the entire national debt, for taxes, and for every other ill they can imagine, past and present. The dude's a tool, yes, but he didn't cause all these problems. We all did. It's time to man up and deal with them instead of looking for scapegoats.
I like how every single comment blames Obama for the entire national debt, for taxes, and for every other ill they can imagine, past and present. The dude's a tool, yes, but he didn't cause all these problems. We all did. It's time to man up and deal with them instead of looking for scapegoats.
I thank you for your thoughts on this Kirth. It is rare to find someone who can disagree with the president without resorting to childish name calling. These are things that predate him, Bush II, Bush II(the first time), Clinton, Clinton(the first time), Bush I...etc. I don't think many people realize this, and would rather point out problems than find solutions. Then again, I just watched The Mist, one of my favorite horror movies, so that's probably influencing my thinking.
I would also say that there is a problem in american society today in that people have started to forget what the office of the president is there for and is capable of.