Can a Court Order You To Delete a Facebook Account?

First time accepted submitter jaymz666 writes "Can a court really order you to delete a Facebook account? When Asher initially appeared in court after the July 20 accident, the judge told her to delete her Facebook account, Kittinger said. Asher did not take it seriously, and was charged with contempt of court when the judge learned her Facebook page was still active. Seems like a big overreach."

Comments

Probably

[Shajenko42]

A court can order your execution, I'd imagine they can order the deletion of an online account.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the USA we're talking about. They are more likely to feel outraged about being told to delete a Facebook account than state-sanctioned murder in cold blood.

In other news, gun proliferation is great (despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries) but terminate a foetus and you're going to Hell.

Re:Probably

[characterZer0]

The court can only order your execution after you have been convicted.

The article is not clear, but it sounds like the demand was made prior to conviction.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the USA we're talking about. They are more likely to feel outraged about being told to delete a Facebook account than state-sanctioned murder in cold blood.

In other news, gun proliferation is great (despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries) but terminate a foetus and you're going to Hell.

USA: Speaking of Hell, in the words of organized religion, and all the offensiveness therein that has resulted in millions of lives lost...

...you started it.

Re:Probably

[ciderbrew]

Civilized people don't have the death penalty.

Re:Probably

[Shajenko42]

Well, they can incarcerate you without convicting you.

Re:Probably

[FictionPimp]

They did this to Kevin Mitnick. He was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. Mitnick fought this decision in court, eventually winning a ruling in his favor, allowing him to access the Internet.

Seems like a similar type punishment. I bet it won't be hard for a good lawyer to change the ruling as it falls under unusual punishment. You could claim facebook is a requirement for getting a job (which in some fields it is), that it would put a undo burden on you, or even that there is no basis for the punishment and the judge is violating her freedom of speech.

The lady involved in this case is a horrible person, but her rights to let everyone know she's a horrible person should not be infringed.

Re:Probably

[PraiseBob]

Yep, only 45% is part of the gun owning subculture.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

The death penalty is very civilized. It saves the tax payer thousands upon thousands of dollars. And frankly, I see it as a release. Given the option of life without parole and death, I will take death over an 8'x6' room. Keeping people in jail for life, now THAT is not civilized.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Life in prison without parole is the death penalty with no one willing to carry it out.

2) Animals that kill people are put down, people are just animals.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like upset spouses/partners? Last I looked, that accounted for more than a quarter of the murders.

Re:Probably

[timeOday]

First, your claim is dubious, and second, it's not a defense of the US in particular because any culture would claim exactly the same. Take the middle east. On the one hand we're shocked that Muslims are venting their anger over some nutcase propaganda film against our embassies and the other 99.5% of "westerners" who had nothing to do with it... yet what did I just say? "Muslims are venting." I did NOT say "0.5% of the Muslim fringe is venting," or whatever tiny fraction it is that are actually turning to violence. Can you spot the hypocrisy?

Re:Probably

[SJHillman]

Nor do most states

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

I have seen no data on gun proliferation that indicates that allowing guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens increases murder rates. It does increase death in assaults and home-invasions.

In places like Detroit or Washington DC or Baltimore City where legal gun ownership is basically non-existent, the huge amount of gun proliferation results in an armed criminal element and a disarmed citizenry. This creates a power dynamic whereby criminals have much more control and can be abusive. In truth, a lot of murders seem to be between criminals--they wind up shooting each other in gang turf arguments. They're actually afraid to pull their guns on private citizens, because the gun crime charge is like 10 times worse than the armed robbery charge (you can get 20 years for using a gun as a prop to threaten someone, whereas you may get thrown in jail for 2 years if you rob someone at knife point).

In places like Texas and Florida, murder rate is lower; however 'justifiable homicide' happens more. Basically when someone gets attacked, they shoot back. This means more shootings happen between crazies and less between bullies who think they're malendrine gangster mafioso. The insecure, up-tight morons are a hell of a lot more insecure when people can shoot back; a gunshot draws attention and when everyone in the area has guns and is afraid mostly of being shot but feels like they can shoot you first, they all come looking for you. At least, the theory is strong enough that people believe it and are hesitant to pull out a gun. It's lose-lose: if you don't shoot someone, they might have a gun, and might shoot you (this is fucking hard to do--why would you pull your gun out if the other guy ALREADY has a gun pointed at you?!); if you do shoot them, someone might come looking to see if everyone's alright, and they might find you, and they might have guns.

On top of all that, we have this whole culture thing going on. Look at the death penalty deterrent. In Texas, it's not much of a deterrent because you'll probably be dead before you make it to the court if you're planning on killing someone. In South Dakota, it's not much of a deterrent for unknown reasons. In Wisconsin, also for unknown reasons, when they abolished capital punishment they had murder rates quadrupal in 2 years, and re-instated it to get the murder rates back down.

The same principle applies to gun ownership: local cultural factors will affect how people behave with guns. If they're all insecure hicks who think only of themselves, anything off their property is not their responsibility (no one comes to help you) and anyone on their property needs killin'; if they're more communal, guns simply make people feel empowered and they believe they have a social responsibility, and they use their guns to protect others when other (bad people) bring out their guns to harm innocents. There's a huge gradient between, there's crazy people, people who don't care, people who are paranoid, and people who are just inborn heroes.

I don't think any country can call itself "civilized" when it decides the best way to handle society is to put the common man into a power-disadvantaged lower class. There are bullies and there are victims, and if we make all the common people victims then the bullies get to be kings by abusing people. We should be teaching men and women to fight and to not be afraid, not to cower in fear and leave everyone else to die if they can save themselves from harm. Humans are weak and useless, individual humans have no survival traits; we need to function in groups to live.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Little does the judge know, you can never truly delete your account from there.

Re:Probably

[BronsCon]

Gun owners aren't the busculture, murderes are.

Re:Probably

[urulokion]

Not really. A Facebook account is used for expressions of speech, so the first amendment comes into force. A court can no more order the deletion of a personal Facebook account than it can order the burning of letters or books that I have written. The courts in the US treat first amendment rights as so important, they one has standing to sue is a law or regulation could possibly be affected negatively. Usually one only has standing to bring a lawsuit only if they have been injure in someway by a law/regulation.

If this comtempt charge is appealed (and I do hope the girl does appeal), the appeals court will slap that judge silly for issuing such an order.

Re:Probably

[rubycodez]

so what? what kind of people are those domestic violence cases? law abiding citizens, or 80% previously convicted criminals (which is the case). biggest chunk of those deaths are suicides, 60%, can't use those in argument against firearms.

Re:Probably

[jbrandv]

Umm, civilised people don't require the death penalty. However we don't live in a completely civilised society.

Re:Probably

[grenadeh]

Over half the states of Murca are allowed to use the death penalty - and it is reserved for extremely rare circumstances in homicide cases, like mass murderers and serial killers (same thing right). They can but it's extremely rare that they do when you look at how many actual court cases happen a year all over the place. I mean, the court is pretty much the king and you're the jester, whether you broke any law or not. You do what the hell they say unless the judge is a pothead and doesn't care, aka no such thing. Is it incredibly overbearing and inappropriate and should it be unconstitutional to order a person not accused of a real crime to delete their private property? Inarguably. I understand that there are criminals who kill people and steal shit and whatever - they don't deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve their American constitutional protections, those that apply to criminals and inmates, nothing more. But, for fake criminals - 1st or maybe 2nd time DUIs, disorderly conducts, people who forgot to make a bill payment, shit like that, it's absurd.

Re:Probably

[fredrated]

Don't know much about the topic do you?
In fact, the automatic appeals, lawyer fees etc. involved in attempting to execute someone are well known to cost the state far more than simply keeping the perp in jail for life.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

Ya , because repeatedly sodomizing someone is a confined space is so much more civilized.
If you have to remove someone from society from the greater good, killing is not necessarily worse or less humane then removing most of their freedoms.

Re:Probably

[BMOC]

A civilized people wouldn't need a death penalty. What a shame humans are less than civilized.

Re:Probably

[i.r.id10t]

Having no criminal record is also a requirement for many jobs... probably more jobs than those that require using facebook. So is a conviction unusual punishment?

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

The death penalty is not cheaper. It is not a deterrent. There are also way too many cases of people on death row who end up being cleared. How many innocent people have we wound up executing? We'll never know.

Even if you think the death penalty has practical value, though, the state should not be empowered to execute its citizens, period.

Re:Probably

[FitForTheSun]

The death penalty definitely does not save the taxpayer any money. It is very expensive to execute a person, much MUCH more expensive than allowing them to live in prison for the rest of their natural life.

The whole point is that executions are worth the cost.

Re:Probably

[INT_QRK]

Since a court orders what a court decides to order, the question might be better worded: "in your opinion, should a court be empowered to order deletion of an online account, and under what justified conditions?" Another question might be, under what statute or case law precedent is a court justified in ordering deletion of an online account." The saying, "there's no such thing as a stupid question" belies an underlying reality that some question are useless at best, or counterproductive, at worse, as initially conceived because they may be predicated on false or misapplied premises. This may be one of those questions.

Re:Probably

[BronsCon]

It may be 0.5% of Muslims living in the US, but you can bet it's a far, far higher percentage of Muslime living in the Middle East.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

Life is the most basic of all rights. If the state has the power to take that, then there is no power the state doesn't have. It is the ultimate encroachment of government power.

(And I say this as someone who is not a small-government libertarian.)

Re:Probably

[h4rr4r]

Why is any sexual contact occurring in prison?

Those responsible should be charged with rape and confined in solitary so they cannot harm others. The fact that out prisons are also uncivilized is not a good argument for more barbarism.

Re:Probably

[sa1lnr]

A court can order your execution

Before the trial has taken place?

Re:Probably

[mcgrew]

violent crimes in the USA are largely committed by certain few subcultures

Do you have the balls to outright name these "subcultures"? The police subculture maybe? Or perhaps Rich people?

Please clear this up, I fear you're making a thinly veiled racist statement about blacks and hispanics, or a classist statement about poor people. Crime doesn't fit any subculture; every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers.

Re:Probably

[BronsCon]

This guy gets it. Do you by chance have any psych education?

Re:Probably

[man_of_mr_e]

A judge ordering you to delete a facebook account is not violating your free speech. He's not saying you can't say things, just not in that particular forum.

This is akin to a judge ordering someone to whitewash a wall they covered with graffiti.

You're free to say all the things you said on facebook, somewhere else.

I didn't read the article (shocking I know) but if the the person committed a crime in connection with facebook, then the judge has a right to order you not to use it. Much like Kevin Mitnick was ordered to not use a computer for a given period of time.

Re:Probably

[Bigby]

One could argue that civilized people don't imprison people for extended periods of time. One could also argue that civilized people don't imprison people at all. So what do you do with someone who is hellbent on killing everyone?

I disagree with use of the death penalty myself, but the "civilized people" argument is flawed. The better argument is that there is no moral justification to give one person the authority to kill another person. No matter what the latter person did.

But one could say the same thing about giving someone the authority to imprison someone indefinitely.

That means that we just have to accept immoral authority. "Civilized people" must accept immoral authority.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

for those to lazy to click through here's the juicy:

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

So, not only are you wrong from a pure economic stand point, the fact you try to justify civility as meaning "cheapest wins" is frankly testimant to how thoroughly uncivilised you are.

If you do find yourself in a 8'x6' room feel free to administer your own desired form of justice FoC, but please stop supporting state sponsored murder on from a moral high-ground.

Re:Probably

[gl4ss]

rape is too easy way to get someone to death row on purpose.
so are a lot of other things.

but civilized people don't have death penalty because for the innocent it's too cruel and for the guilty it's too easy.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we judge the "civilized" people there by the level of racism they display in Slashdot posts?

Re:Probably

[AwesomeMcgee]

You're equating vandalism with free speech, these are not the same. A court could not order you to white wash a wall you covered with graffiti if it was your wall. That would be an encroachment on your right to free speech.

The right to free speech isn't restricted to certain forums, the right is to all forums, unless that expression of free speech violates other laws such as threats, libel, or as you pointed out, vandalism.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is "undue", not "undo". Thank you.

Re:Probably

[v1]

Civilized people don't have the death penalty.

Any large group of people will have at least a few members that are VERY "uncivilized". And within that small portion is where the death penalty occasionally needs to be applied.

The death penalty is for those that have demonstrated a complete, destructive, and unwavering lack of respect for the rights of others, and who are an unsalvageable and severe danger to their community. If you think YOUR community is completely devoid of uncivilized people, you are delusional.

There are three camps for the support of death penalty. It's used as a deterrent, a punishment, and a protection for the community. It doesn't make a completely effective deterrent because some hardened sadistic people are ok to just rape and pillage until they finally get caught. Punishment doesn't provide anything more than emotional help for those injured. Removing them permanently from the community for its own protection, that has demonstrable, practical value.

I like how they did it with Australia, dump them off on an isolated island where they're no longer a danger to their community, they can fend for themselves among the rest of the cutthroats. Don't need to kill them, let them kill each other since they all seem to agree that's the OK thing to do. Let their own values be the executor of their fate.

Re:Probably

[FictionPimp]

Really, that's the argument you are going to with, a fallacy of accident. It is reasonable to assume that someone who commits a crime is punished and that punishment labels them as a criminal. However, the law has shown that there are limits to punishment if they cause a undo burden on a person. These typically come in the form of unusual or extreme punishments.

For example, it is customary and reasonable to suspend a drivers license for habitual speeders and people with DUIs. But, if that suspension would cost them their livelihoods, it is also typically considered unreasonable to not give them a permit to drive to and from work. This prevents undo burden on the criminal and allows them the chance to actually become a healthy member of society given that they can work within that framework and follow the rule of law.

Likewise it would have been reasonable for the judge to order this lady to not post on facebook content relating to the crime or trial. It is unusual, and creates a undo burden to take away her access entirely and permanently (not to mention unconstitutionally depriving her of her speech) simple because he didn't like what she had to say. Therefore I would argue it is indeed unusual punishment, it puts a burden on her for a crime that is wholly and completely different than almost every other drunk driver (in fact I can't think of another case).

Re:Probably

[interkin3tic]

It's always funny when you tell proponents of the death penalty that it costs a huge amount more. In my experience, they generally suggest cheap ways of killing people. You know, because the logical first assumption would be not lawyer costs but that we were killing prisoners using thousands of diamond swords or something.

Re:Probably

[macbeth66]

hmmm...

This is in response to your statement, not a declaration of my opinion on the death penalty. Slippery bugger, ain't I?

You are right, the death penalty is more expensive. But only becuase of the insane hurdles the anti-penalty crowd have put in place to ensure the rights of the accused are maintained. Good thing we have those insane hurdles, or the more blood-thirsty of us in society would whack off people for every offense. Like bad-mouthing the iPhone

You are incorrect that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Have you ever heard of someone that was put to death, coming back to life and committing another crime?

Re:Probably

[jodido]

cite at least five, then

Re:Probably

[Sparticus789]

In other news, gun proliferation is great (despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries) but terminate a foetus and you're going to Hell.

Citation please? I believe Switzerland would tend to disagree with you.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

A deterrent means that the threat of the punishment prevents crime from happening in the first place - not that it prevents recidivism.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

Nope. In fact, states that brought back the death penalty after getting rid of it saw an upsurge in murders.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

So "Give me Liberty, or give me Death" is a empty meaningless idea?
The government already had the power over life and death, and far more worryingly then killing a few undesirables is their stance on not allowing you the choice to death.
To me power over your life is far worse then your death. And turning criminals into slaves is worse than permanently removing them from society.

Re:Probably

[ragefan]

One could argue that civilized people don't imprison people for extended periods of time. One could also argue that civilized people don't imprison people at all. So what do you do with someone who is hellbent on killing everyone?

I vote for exile by trebuchet.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

In my opinion slavery will always be more uncivilized than euthanasia.

Re:Probably

[Worthless_Comments]

Due to the amount of extra legal costs involved with capital punishment sentencing, it is actually more expensive to kill someone than to hold them in prison for life. Just saying.

Re:Probably

[interval1066]

A court can order your execution, I'd imagine they can order the deletion of an online account.

Your imagination is lacking, or over-active, one of the two. You make it sound like a "court" (whatever that is) can wave its hand and order things like executions and censorship. A JUDGE may order an execution as a punishement if a jury has so decreed it after due process, which automatically triggers retrial attempts. Ordering a person to take down a facebook page will trigger a 1st amendment hearing, you can be sure. A judge might order that some one convicted of a crime may not be able to use a computer as part of his punishment, but putting limits on things anyone can say or how will be contested you can be sure.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

If we are going to execute someone, should we really not give them full due process of law? Taking a life is the most extreme action available to our justice system. We owe it to ourselves to take every measure possible to ensure the accused is guilty of the crime in question under the circumstances related by the prosecution. This is why we have multiple appeals: so different individuals can take a fresh look at the facts and the trial and any previous appeals and see if anything went wrong.

Even then, we stand a good chance of missing exculpatory evidence. For instance, there are death row convictions based on eyewitness testimony which are later ruled out by DNA evidence. This happens way too often, and it is naive to think we have caught or will catch every instance where an innocent person has gone to death row--just as a matter of statistical probability, we must have executed innocent people. There is no legal process to prove this since there is no victim to redress or petition the court (the victim is dead) so you will never see a court case where an executed individual is exonerated by a court of law.

As the AC said, deterrence and recidivism are separate issues. The death penalty has been demonstrated to, at best, have no effect on murder rates. Some studies have shown it actually increases murder rates.

In any case, this is all beside the point as far as I'm concerned, given that this is a power government should not possess in the first place.

Re:Probably

[queBurro]

where as crushing them to death with only one *really* huge diamond would be much cheaper

Re:Probably

[Java Pimp]

I will take death over an 8'x6' room.

That's the size of my cubicle you insensitive CLOD!

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

One could argue that civilized people don't imprison people for extended periods of time.

I guess it depends on the prison: Halden Prison, Norway

Re:Probably

[TWX]

The court can only order your execution after you have been convicted.

The article is not clear, but it sounds like the demand was made prior to conviction.

Very true. Also, her making light of the nature of the severe charges against her are a demonstration of contempt, hence the "Contempt of Court" decision by the judge.

Had she not posted anything about it, or at least waited until after justice had been concluded, she probably could have said whatever she wanted about the incident without ramification. But, she made light of it in a public forum while still under scrutiny.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death" was a statement of conviction, of being willing to die for one's beliefs.

An individual being willing to die for their beliefs does not validate the government's power to oblige them.

Re:Probably

[INT_QRK]

Of course, I get it. America bad. Americans stupid. I'm smart! Much better than dumb American. My guess is that you're either a bigoted (from my perspective) foreigner, or a self-rightous American liberal. Either way, up yours.

Re:Probably

[ciderbrew]

Well put point and worth a reply.
Not too sure that "Civilized people" must accept immoral authority.
A lot of cases you read in the press would have the "people" as immoral and "the system" - (a judge judge who has seen a number of these cases over the years) being the better person.
I believe "the people" (me) would be ok with Anders Breivik being tortured for years and years with a doctor on standby to make sure he doesn't die. Civilized people can't be civilized 100% of the time when faced with something so horrific. The aim is to have a civilized authority/system. OR to put it the best way i've read -
Gandalf the Wise's response
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Re:Probably

[chmod a x mojo]

Constitutionally in the U.S.A. this is not true.
To put it in the most base context, this is the same as the judge ordering her to smash her printing press because she printed something ( that is either true, or her opinion) that some people disagreed with - which is unconstitutional. It would violate her first amendment rights.

The proper way to legally go about it would be for the judge to ask Facebook to delete the post that he / she thought was excessively inflammatory. Facebook could then decide to comply or not as they see fit. I'm actually surprised that the ACLU ( American Civil Liberties Union) is not jumping all over this....

Re:Probably

[DustyShadow]

Here is one. You can find the others on your own http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRubShepDeterFinal.pdf

Re:Probably

[JustOK]

And, of course, profit is the greatest good.

Re:Probably

[shemyazaz]

I will take death over an 8'x6' room.

That's the size of my cubicle you insensitive CLOD!

Dude! Your cubicle is huge! Envy^3.

Re:Probably

[nedlohs]

People who kill animals are not given the death penalty. Since you claim people are just animals why do we do so if the animal killed happened to be a person?

Re:Probably

[chmod a x mojo]

You are incorrect that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Have you ever heard of someone that was put to death, coming back to life and committing another crime?

And you seem to be misunderstanding the word deterrent. It means the crime that was committed would not have been committed if there was - in this case- the death penalty. Obviously that is not the case if the crime WAS committed and the person gets the death penalty. It doesn't mean that the same person would commit the crime again, that is recidivism.

Re:Probably

[macbeth66]

As the AC said, deterrence and recidivism are separate issues. The death penalty has been demonstrated to, at best, have no effect on murder rates. Some studies have shown it actually increases murder rates.

Oh, stop it! Just stop it! Stop refuting me with facts. I want truthiness here.

;)

Okay, that was a bit of a giveaway. I was trying to inject a litle humor. It was a bit strong for someone to bring up the death penaly during a discussion of DUI case. Sorry, I had no 'smiley' in there.

Re:Probably

[icebraining]

1) Life in prison without parole is the death penalty with no one willing to carry it out.

Tell that to the guy who was released after 20 years of being in prison, because it was proven he was innocent. Or can you bring back the dead?

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

In Wisconsin, also for unknown reasons, when they abolished capital punishment they had murder rates quadrupal in 2 years, and re-instated it to get the murder rates back down.

Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853, never reinstated it, has only executed a single person in it's history, and has one of the lowest per capita homicide rates in America. So whatever your source is, it's crap.

Re:Probably

[icebraining]

Euthanasia? We were talking about the death penalty.

Re:Probably

[gnasher719]

A judge ordering you to delete a facebook account is not violating your free speech. He's not saying you can't say things, just not in that particular forum.

What it really comes down to: A judge can order anything. When that happens there are two reasonable and one stupid thing to do: a. Do what the judge ordered. b. Take a lawyer who will try to get rid of the order. c. Don't do what the judge ordered.

c. gets you done for "contempt of court", so that's the stupid thing to do. You do what the judge said, or you fight it legally, but ignoring it gets you into trouble.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Re:Probably

[icebraining]

Those other freedoms can be restored if after ten or twenty years we find the justice system committed an error. How do you do that with the death penalty?

Re:Probably

[angel'o'sphere]

That is not insigtfull ;D

Lets look at germany for instance, there is no law that states: "In case of infringement/bad behaviour (insert culprits felony here) the punishement is: 'delete this or that' ".

In other words, a german judge can not simply invent a new punishment and apply it.

Regarding the original question I assume the "first amendment" would allow the culprit to keep his account. However the question might be like with domain names: does he rightfull use/need that facebook account or did he steal/abuse a nick/trademark or anything else for this account.

I mean if I would make a facebook account called "IBM directors group" the company might be a bit upset and likely would win in court to force me to _change the name_ but not necessary to _delete_ it.

Re:Probably

[ciderbrew]

For you, I'll make an amendment.
Civilized people don't have the death penalty; But have to deal with VERY "uncivilized" people in a civilized way.

I'll also add this: - It's used as a deterrent, a punishment, protection and vengeance* for the community.

*In Britain, a Former Conservative MP, Michael Portillo made a good program about this. Some didn't want death to painless, they wanted vengeance too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R18yDjc2lKE

Re:Probably

[Sectoid_Dev]

In places like Detroit or Washington DC or Baltimore City where legal gun ownership is basically non-existent, the huge amount of gun proliferation results in an armed criminal element and a disarmed citizenry.

I can't speak for the other cities, but there is nothing overly restrictive about the gun owenerships laws in Detroit or the state of Michigan. Open carry is allowed assuming the gun is registered and CCW is legal after taking the course and the background check. The people of Detroit do often keep guns in their house because they know the police are not going to show up in any reasonable amount of time, if at all.

Just because the city is a shit hole, don't assume the reason for that is one that fits your ideological bias.

Re:Probably

[Nadaka]

The death penalty isn't a a deterrent because the class of crimes that it is reserved for are those that are nearly impossible to deter.

The death penalty would make a fantastic shoplifting deterrent. Murder? not so much.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

Well, I hope I didn't seem hostile. I figured you were mostly playing devil's advocate. ;)

Re:Probably

[jellomizer]

I personally think the Criminal Justice system is messed up.

You Jail people who dangerous to society.
You Execute people who are too dangerous to be in jail, or finds ways to excaping from jail.

Some people can be reformed others cannot.

Re:Probably

[h4rr4r]

Slavery?
We do not want productive work from them, just to prevent them from harming others.

Euthanasia this is not, it is not in the best interest of the patient. This is state sanctioned murder. It costs more than life in prison, it will result in killing innocent people. If you are for the death penalty, you are implicitly accepting the state murdering innocent people.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing we have those insane hurdles, or the more blood-thirsty of us in society would whack off people for every offense.

Would you wack me off please?

Re:Probably

[richard.cs]

I would like to include rape for the death penalty but the Supreme Court has said no, that's too cruel.

You absolutely should not have the same punishment for rape as for murder. Doing so gives rapists a big incentive to kill their victims: without the victim as a witness they're much less likely to get caught and if the penalty is identical....

This should hold true whether you think the death penalty is a good idea or not.

Re:Probably

[ArsonSmith]

You should make this post your sig. I love it!!

Re:Probably

[AlecC]

Deterrence does not mean the same as prevention. The death penalty undoubtedly prevents the criminal re-offending - as would lifetime incarceration. But it does not appear to deter the people from committing similar offences. The sort of people who would be deterred by the death penalty are also the sort of people who would never commit the kind of offence that allows the death penalty.

Re:Probably

[spire3661]

For a limited time and with due process. Just because everyone else seems to ignore the Constitution doesnt mean i will.

Re:Probably

[Eponymous Hero]

i think the root of the problem is forgiveness. let's take that mass murderer in norway. anyone feel like he deserves forgiveness? do a majority? is there hope for reform? do we believe in the salvation of his soul and attribute value to that in our corporeal society, or his he ultimately dead weight? it doesn't really do any good (objectively) to have the death penalty, we've studied that and learned from it. but we feel like they deserve it, right? a guy rapes and kills a dozen kids, you don't let that guy live, right? who forgives? that's why we have the death penalty. there are some things most of us can't forgive. the death penalty is legalized vengeance.

Re:Probably

[SScorpio]

What do you mean about Detroit and legal gun ownership? Michigan has very liberal conceal carry laws, and I know several professionals who work in Detroit and legally carry concealed pistol just in case.

There were also stories several months ago about some break-ins in Detroit where the home owners shot the intruders. One of these was a guy in his 80s that killed one of the intruders with his shotgun. The media presented him as a hero, and there was no information about any charges against him as he was within Michigan's CASTLE law.

Michigan as well as Detroit have open carry laws, you might be hassled by the police for carry around a shotgun or rifle strapped across your back but I (IANAL) don't believe it's against a law anywhere. To conceal your weapon you need a conceal carry license, and the gun being concealed must be registered to the person with the CC permit. To get a CC you must complete a CC training course and fill out a form and pay a fee.

The only reason the majority of Detroit citizens couldn't own a gun would be if the majority of them are convicted felons. This is also not the case contrary to what you've heard on the news.

Re:Probably

[spire3661]

In many cases, yes. The gradiation of Felony/misdemeanor is too sharp and its too easy to turn one into the other.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

I agree that the death penalty is legal ritual to enable vengeance. I think that's a bad thing. Others may think it's just fine. I am not sure which way you lean! :)

Re:Probably

[Pepebuho]

It may very well happen that sometime along your life, your "crime" may become legal. With Death Penalty, you are fucked up. With Life without Parole, you may get a chance and eventually get free. Ask Nelson Mandela about it.

Re:Probably

[Mr. Slippery]

Ya , because repeatedly sodomizing someone is a confined space is so much more civilized.

The solution to prison rape is to fix the prisons (largely by stopping overcrowding them with drug offenders and taking rehabilitation seriously again), not to murder convicts on the basis that that's more civilized.

If you have to remove someone from society from the greater good, killing is not necessarily worse or less humane then removing most of their freedoms.

If someone is sentenced to life without parole, I can see giving them the option of euthanasia.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

And in a society without the death penalty, both are taken away.
You are not allowed either liberty or death, no matter what your desire is.

Re:Probably

[superdave80]

There are also way too many cases of people on death row who end up being cleared.

Couldn't this be an indication that the appeals process is working?

How many innocent people have we wound up executing? We'll never know.

How many innocent people have we wound up throwing in prison until they die? We'll never know.

Re:Probably

[Rogerborg]

Maybe you should go and read the article then, before running your mouth off.

If expressing your opinion about the judicial system or a particular verdict isn't protected political speech, then I can't really think what is.

Judge McPrissypants there needs to be told by a grown up that many of us hold the judicial system in contempt, for exactly this sort of arbitrary thin skinned over-reaction.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

"Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering." Who says the pain and suffering has to be yours, or it could not be used to prevent future pain and suffering?

That is the general idea of removing a person from society, permanently.

Re:Probably

[Migraineman]

I like how they did it with Australia, dump them off on an isolated island where they're no longer a danger to their community, they can fend for themselves among the rest of the cutthroats. Don't need to kill them, let them kill each other since they all seem to agree that's the OK thing to do. Let their own values be the executor of their fate.

Hey, we could do something like that in the States ... say, Manhattan Island?

Re:Probably

[Warhawke]

The death penalty is imposed for retributive punishment. Terrible as that may seem, it's purpose is to satiate the vengeance of the victim or victim's loved ones and prevent them from taking justice into their own hands. Although we may not like the retributive part of humanity, it nevertheless exists, and the death penalty exists to curb that appetite and minimize the amount of vendetta justice.

Re:Probably

[cheesybagel]

That's pretty simple. From a rational POV if you know you are getting killed if you get caught, would you turn yourself in or fight to the death?

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

You cannot give a person back those ten or twenty years. You cannot fix the mistake, only try to fix a small amount of the damage. In the same way you could give his family money if you executed someone.
And a significant amount of people who get out after those 10 to 20 years will be seriously scared for life from their imprisonment, some will even kill themselves.

Re:Probably

[Mr. Slippery]

A civilized people wouldn't need a death penalty. What a shame humans are less than civilized.

Either most developed nations - indeed, most nations -- other than the U.S. are civilized and we're not, or uncivilized people don't need a death penalty either.

Re:Probably

[hobarrera]

Out of curiosity, why is it so terrible expensive?

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

Only a deranged individual could argue that the abolition of the death penalty is an erosion of liberty.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

Having them work would be a kindness. Sticking them in small confined spaces and having them work out there anger on each-other is far worse then what most slaves had to endure.

I am as accepting to the state murdering innocent people as enslaving them.

Re:Probably

[fm6]

To quote the story, LOL! Do yo have any idea how hard it is to get a death sentence out of the U.S, court system? Look at spending millions on trials and appeals.

This kind of court ordered action isn't, strictly speaking, a penalty. Ms. LOL must have agreed to it as part of a plea bargain. If she thinks its overreach, well, she can always do jail time instead.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

In a lot of the cases where people are exonerated, it doesn't come from the appeals process--it comes from nonprofit researchers who examine the evidence themselves and try to build a case to present to the appeals court. Appeals courts themselves do not do any of the work to try to ascertain guilt or innocence based on the evidence.

Locking up an innocent person until they die is bad, too, but that doesn't make the death penalty any more attractive. Our criminal justice system has a lot of problems. This is only one of them.

Re:Probably

[mschaffer]

In the US, the government cannot restrict "free" speech. However, the US Constitution does not protect you from capital punishment.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

Your argument makes very little sense given that Western countries which have abolished the death penalty have lower murder rates. You would assume that, in the absence of a death penalty, people would go out and get justice themselves, through deadly force. But this is not the case.

Re:Probably

[mschaffer]

Oh, so civility = thrift.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

That's part of why it's not a deterrent. It can make a violent crime more violent, as the criminal takes extra measures to ensure they won't be caught.

In fact, this is why expanding the death penalty to crimes like rape is counterproductive. If rape will get you executed, then why even leave a living victim? Better to kill them and reduce your chances of getting caught. This is what they call a perverse incentive.

Re:Probably

[dgatwood]

It isn't a fallacy. You're trying to distort the true cost. You can't just look at the cost of the execution itself and compare it with the cost of the incarceration. You have to compare the cost of a shorter incarceration plus capital crime appeals plus execution against the longer incarceration with non-capital crime appeals and no execution.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that death penalty cases have a series of mandatory appeals because you have to be absolutely sure that somebody is guilty if you're going to execute them. Therefore, there is a significant cost after the initial conviction leading up to the execution.

By contrast, most people who are merely jailed for a crime do not appeal or do not have sufficient grounds for an appeal and so are rapidly denied that appeal. Therefore, the appeals process has a much lower cost.

Re:Probably

[coolmoose25]

Here's the problem with your logic on capital punishment. I live in Connecticut, which has recently repealed the death penalty. Here is the reality: Before it was repealed, when a heinous crime was committed, the defendant was charged with the capital crime. They would be told by the prosecutor the state would seek the death penalty. In some cases, this was enough to get the defendant to plead to a lower crime, with life in prison without possibility of parole as the agreed punishment. This made sure that the perp never again would terrorize the public. And it was cheaper. In other cases, the state would pursue the death penalty because the crime was so particularly heinous. Google "Cheshire CT Murder" and you'll see the case where two career criminals, with an average of 20 felony convictions each, decided to rape and murder a mother and two teenage daughters because they "liked their car" and followed them home. This crime was so infamous, that even though the state had elected a democrat governor with a democrat legislature, they could not pass the repeal as the political backlash would have been too great. They waited until the next year when the defendants had been sentenced to death before repealing the death penalty for NEW capital crimes.

After it has been repealed, here is what has happened. With the death penalty off the table, the state could only seek life in prison without possibility of parole as it's biggest gun. So defendants now plead out to the lesser crimes with 25 year sentences instead, and are now eligible for parole. As such, there is no really good way of getting someone put away for life without bearing the previous cost of the death penalty cases, with their costly trials and endless appeals. So in reality, the state has saved no money, but now puts murders back on the street at some point. And the biggest irony is that existing death row inmates are now petitioning for their sentences to be reduced to life without parole under the equal treatment clauses under the constitution. This is still outstanding, but it is likely they will prevail. And the two murderers in Cheshire? Well, they are not yet a party to that case, as they are having their cases appealed first. Once that is done, and their appeals are denied, they'll attach themselves to this litigation, and I predict that their sentences will be reduced as well.

The fact of the matter is that none of this will save any money. The fact of the matter is that the old system worked well, since Connecticut never actually executed its death row inmates, except in one case where the murderer essentially committed state suicide by demanding his execution, and even then he had to represent himself, as no lawyer wanted to make that case for him. Other than him, Connecticut hadn't actually killed anyone for decades. But heinous criminals were kept behind bars for life, without the possibility of parole boards, early release programs, etc. releasing these monsters back into society.

But we're all better off now, right? Yeah, I agree. Now lets go gun shopping!

Re:Probably

[Bryansix]

I know I'm responding to an AC so this is pointless but I do have to take issue. Murder rates are not linked to Gun Proliferation; they are linked to people who want to murder.

Re:Probably

[sumdumass]

It's been my understanding that the lawyer and appeals costs are well known and most people who support the death penalty think we should get away from that portion of it and just streamline the process.

To me, it is not about the costs. Some crimes are simply heinous and people should understand that in doing them, they are committing suicide if caught, not getting 3 hots and a cot for the rest of their life with the chance of romance and drama along the way. But then again, I don't think the death penalty should be given out like the court costs in a speeding ticked someone tried to fight. It should be reserved for the most heinous crimes involving clear motivation and guilt. I think it is completely ridiculous that someone can murder 77 unarmed people- mostly women and children- and only get 10 to 21 years in prison.

Re:Probably

[Nethemas the Great]

That's a judgement call. There are some questions that really should be being answered. The first question is: "is it possible for a person to truly be worthless?" If it is not possible, "how do we extract the maximum value out of people deemed destructive and/or parasitic by society?" If it is possible "what is the most cost effective way to dispose of a person deemed worthless by society?" Originally the death penalty was viewed as the most efficient and expeditious means not to mention cathartic for the victims. However, with all the concern for wrongful prosecution and humane methodology it has come to be far more expensive and anything but cathartic for the victims than institutionalizing that person for the remainder of their natural life--because of the protraction of dispensing final justice.

To further conflict things is the realization that with rare exception criminals are a product of their upbringing and environment. While their actions are inexcusable to society the person is a product of their own victimization. Should we treat? Can we treat? Or should we discard?

Re:Probably

[Mister Whirly]

Obviously as there are zero murders in any country that has the death penalty. Of course a law will stop anyone from doing anything illegal. Oh wait...

Also, a claim without a citation is useless. Watch this -

The death penalty actually increases the murder rates, plenty of studies have proven it.

See, my uncited point is just as valid as yours. If there are plenty of studies that prove your point, would you mind sharing even one of the plenty with us?

Re:Probably

[Bill_the_Engineer]

One could argue that civilized people don't imprison people for extended periods of time. One could also argue that civilized people don't imprison people at all. So what do you do with someone who is hellbent on killing everyone?

One could argue that giving punishment for crime committed has always been a part of civilization since the beginning. Therefore by definition civilized people would imprison people for extended period of time or even punish them by death. Unless of course your definition of civilization is an idealized one where crime is never committed and thusly never punished.

Re:Probably

[Nethemas the Great]

Actually with the protraction involved in any (American) death penalty case it is almost universally more expensive than a lifetime incarceration. Decide whether we should punish or should we rehabilitate and take action accordingly. The American justice system is torn between these two poles and as a consequence is doing neither very effectively.

Re:Probably

[Eldragon]

We tried that. Kurt Russell was in and out in under 2 hours.

Re:Probably

[Gordonjcp]

Civilised people don't drink and drive, either.

Re:Probably

[sumdumass]

I would like to see some information about that. Do you have any numbers to cite?

Also, are you sure it isn't a chicken and egg concept type problem? I mean was the death penalty brought back (they generally never went away, just a moratorium places on them) that caused the upsurge or was it the upsurge that brought the penalty back?

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

Maybe I have it backwards. Or it was Missouri. Look there's so much data in my head I'm losing track; this is not my field and I only care insofar as I don't do stupid shit like decide "Oh X immediately and simply means Y so we should stop X."

Re:Probably

[Mr. Slippery]

The death penalty would make a fantastic shoplifting deterrent.

Probably not. They tried it in Britain: "...in twenty two years from 1749 to 1771 two hundred and forty persons were convicted of shoplifting and other analogous offences one hundred and nine of whom were actually executed."

Re:Probably

[RobbieCrash]

How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?

According to this, for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns, but the US murder rate is comparable to China's (within ~500 murders annually the last 3 years, 60+% committed by guns in the US, stats not available for China), even though the US population is ONE BILLION PEOPLE SMALLER. With a murder rate 4x higher than anywhere else in the civilized world, it doesn't seem like having a well armed populace is doing much to curb gun violence.

Maryland and Detroit's gun violence is largely confined to gang activity, so arming the lawful citizenry isn't going to help much. If everyone outside of the gangs is armed, but gangs aren't shooting at non-gang members, why do the rest need to be armed? Yeah yeah, almost all of those guns are illegally owned, but rather than arming the rest of the population, why not work at disarming the criminal population?

The reason that capitol punishment is not much of a deterrent, is that people don't expect to be caught, the same reason that longer sentences generally do not decrease severe crimes, ie: murder. If a person is going to commit murder, it doesn't matter what the punishment is, they're not killing someone while thinking about what will happen when they're caught; they're thinking they're going to get away with it. Wisconsin's death penalty was revoked 150 years ago, which bears little resemblance to today's climate, and according to this article from the Wisconsin law society, it was never repealed.

I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?

Re:Probably

[Nethemas the Great]

So I shouldn't rub it in that I have a 14'X12' (albeit interior) office to myself?

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

Well, apparently the idea that it increases murders is a response to those trying to distort statistics to show that it reduces them.

This article discusses that particular phenomenon: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

It also says that the evidence could easily be read to show that increased executions result in increased murders, though they are unwilling to directly draw that conclusion.

What I did find in my research is that any studies which claim to show a deterrence effect from capital punishment tend to fall apart under serious scrutiny. To show a deterrence effect requires massaging the numbers in such a way to get the results you want. So, at best, it does nothing to deter murders, and based on the available evidence, it looks like murders are actually increased, but that would require more study.

The vast majority of criminologists agree that there's no evidence of a deterrence effect from capital punishment, though.

Re:Probably

[Joce640k]

Diamond swords would be a lot cheaper than lawyers in the long term.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

And executes innocent people. I guess you think that kind of "collateral damage" is fine as long as you appear "tough on crime," right?

Re:Probably

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I have seen no data on gun proliferation that indicates that allowing guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens increases murder rates. It does increase death in assaults and home-invasions.

This is a trick statement used by politicians and NRA members. I understand what you are trying to say, but be aware that your statement is self-fulfilling since people who were law-abiding prior to using their gun in a crime will no longer be in that same category afterwards and can be conveniently overlooked.

For all we knew, Amy Bishop was a law abiding biology professor before she went on a shooting spree next door to the building I'm in on the UAH campus and killed three colleagues and seriously wounded three more.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Undue, it's an undue burden.
An undo burden is pressing ctrl+z one too many times and not having a redo option.

Re:Probably

[MooseTick]

"Taking a life is the most extreme action available to our justice system."

There's no reason why our justice system couldn't take both your life and a loved one's. We just need a few laws added. Sadly, that would sometimes be a better deterent than taking the perp's life. Criminals often don't care about themselves, but say you'll execute their momma and they may think twice before they commit crime.

Re:Probably

[Jane Q. Public]

"Civilized people don't have the death penalty."

I would disagree with you, *IF* our "criminal justice system" were less fraught with errors and bureaucracy. The death penalty is in fact a viable -- I would even say humane -- method of removing certain cancers from society. Not as a punishment or "deterrent", but rather just a way of removing an intractable problem once and for all.

But since our system *IS* so full of errors -- just look at the number of convictions that have been overturned due to faulty "incontrovertible" DNA evidence -- I cannot condone it at this time. Not because I think there is anything wrong with death in certain special cases, but because I believe we should be very damned sure of guilt before it is done.

Re:Probably

[MooseTick]

"violent crimes in the USA are largely committed by certain few subcultures

Do you have the balls to outright name these "subcultures"? The police subculture [wikipedia.org] maybe? Or perhaps Rich people? [trutv.com]

Please clear this up, I fear you're making a thinly veiled racist statement about blacks and hispanics,..."

We all know he is talking about Canadians.

Re:Probably

[Firethorn]

I kind of doubt that 'murder' is going to become legal anytime soon, at least I hope not.

Personally, my general thoughts:
1. Prison needs to be much more about reform.
2. If your'e not going to reform, you might as well execute
3. In general, the DP should be 'reserved' for those who have murdered 3 or more, or committed deliberate torture along with the murder.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

I sure hope that's a joke or satire and not a serious suggestion.

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

No, I have a functional human brain and those are capable of emulating other functional human brains. It's a critical socialization skill, granted my social skills are crap--I'm slow and work with masses and general trends rather than individuals, and I don't lie (though I get a lot of specific data wrong and have to keep learning) and have too much of a conscience.

Interestingly, a large part of human behavior is concealing or altering the truth, including projecting false feelings--the dating scene is impossible, for example, if you're always up-front that you really don't have any serious feelings for one girl over another, but this one seems nice and it's a good chance and you've accepted that you have to close one opportunity to open another and so you're going to date her. Seriously, I've met three girls that I was interested in because, for whatever reason, nobody else would do and I just REALLY wanted that particular girl, and you know even super-studs and plain old normal people have a LOT of misses among the dozen or so girlfriends they have. That behavior is ... incorrect, and rather extreme.

In the same way, a lot of human behavior involves projecting an interest in things you don't half care about; confidence you don't have; and just over-stating your opinions. This is the core of sales and marketing. This is why people talk tough, go through with things they're shaky on but they look like they believe their own moronic bullshit, and then wind up upside down in the air on a motorcycle heading for a mound of dirt and mud like a retard with wings. People want to fit in, want to be accepted, respected, and rewarded. Dating a girl you don't honestly care about but telling her you do is a good way to get sex--doubly so if you're well aware that the relationship is much more temporary than you're saying, because you can play the I-have-a-girlfriend chip on chicks at the bar and nail some floozies. Hanging out with your guy friends drinking shitty beer and watching football is great even if you don't like football, because your guy friends would think you're lame otherwise and "male bonding" is about being the coolest guy in the group. It just goes on.

People think so much about what others think about them. It's pretty much built-in. I'm not saying there aren't crazy people, or even that people aren't over-confident or so insecure that they will do things that should frighten them because they're more afraid of being scared. I'm just saying, you know, the more you think the people around you WILL find you and WILL kill you if you do something, the more terrifying doing that something becomes. If it's just "that guy probably has a gun," you engineer the situation to where he can't use it...maybe just shoot him outright. Nobody else is going to come looking. If it's more "everyone in town is going to have their gun out when they hear the gunshot, they're going to look for people leaving the area, the police will NEVER stop looking for me," and so on, there is no way in hell you're going to commit crimes with a gun--and if you mug someone who has a gun they might SHOOT YOU so maybe you won't do that at all.

Your brain is going to try to figure out how to interact with these people; your goals might be shitty and criminal, but if everyone's behavior just screams "WE WILL FIND YOU AND WE WILL KILL YOU," you're not going to do shit like that. Not unless something is severely wrong with you. Being a "criminal" isn't wrong, strictly speaking; it's viable if you can do it without getting caught and it supports your life in a way that's acceptable. Some of us don't care about plush couches. Some of us aren't even driven much plainly by sex; others are ALWAYS thinking about sex, to a ridiculous degree. Problem comes in when you face something where every indication says what in your life you require to be "comfortable" is destroyed, and you do it anyway--at that point, something is wrong with you.

By the by, method actors make a career out of us

Re:Probably

[Firethorn]

You absolutely should not have the same punishment for rape as for murder.

Go ancient with it. Rape? long stake(die in a few hours). Rape & Murder? Short stake(can take a few days).

Re:Probably

[Lord Apathy]

Tell that to the guy who was released after 20 years of being in prison, because it was proven he was innocent. Or can you bring back the dead?

Why yes, yes I can. I just choose not to.

Re:Probably

[debrain]

but civilized people don't have death penalty because for the innocent it's too cruel and for the guilty it's too easy.

I would add to your points that capital punishment is also remarkably ineffective and prohibitively expensive.

Select quote:

If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, that would weigh in the balance against capital punishment's heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been shown to exist; the only proven effects of capital punishment are its liabilities.

    - Professor Lamperti

Re:Probably

[man_of_mr_e]

I was responding to the question of "Can a judge do this" and that answer is Yes, a judge CAN do it, and I gave various circumstances in which this can happen.

It doesn't matter what this particular case is when the question was more general.

Re:Probably

[Jane Q. Public]

There is no rational reason why the death penalty should cost more than life in prison. They should not even be in the same ballpark. The fact that the costs have been reversed is tribute to how thoroughly the lawyers have f*ked up our legal system.

I concede that the death penalty should not be used as a leverage to get people to plea bargain, especially if they are innocent. But then, I think plea bargaining should be illegal anyway. It's bullshit. Charge someone with a crime, prosecute them for THAT crime. Period. End of story. If you can't prove they are guilty, they walk. Period. End of story.

That's the basis our legal system was built on. And arguably, it worked better then.

Re:Probably

[Golddess]

I take it you don't accept the claims that lethal injection is actually quite painful.

Re:Probably

[BronsCon]

Wow, a bit longer response than I expected. You really went all-out, there, didn't you? Did you think I was being sarcastic? Because I wasn't.

I think we agree a lot about these types of things and I was more interested in finding out whether your thought process was trained by formal education or if you, liky myself, are simply a logical thinker, able to put things together that the average idiot can't grasp even if it's handed to them on a silver platter.

Re:Probably

[Jane Q. Public]

By that standard, a very large percentage of the world is deranged. I'm not so sure your argument is valid.

Re:Probably

[DigiShaman]

Sort of like capturing a high profile Taliban fighter so they can be prosecuted in civil court?! Screw that. One bullet on the battlefield saves lives and spares the tax payer the extra expense. Also, they don't have to risk the bastard re-joining his group upon release.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

I'm sorry, who else has seriously argued that getting rid of the death penalty denies people liberty? This is the first and only time I have ever seen such an argument.

Re:Probably

[Chris Mattern]

A court can order your execution

Um, no, it can't. That takes a jury. The court must then agree, but, in the US at least, without a conviction by jury *and* a recommendation of the death penalty by the jury as well, the court cannot sentence the defendant to death.

Re:Probably

[mordenkhai]

I disagree, it is only seemingly about vengeance because it isn't handled correctly. You say lets take that mass murderer, sure let consider him. He did it, he admits it, he is not remorseful. He is clearly dangerous, why risk keeping him around? He is exactly the case the death penalty should be for. It shouldn't be handed out willy nilly, but reserved for cases where there is clear evidence. Perhaps require a confession, and not in the interrogation room but in the court room, perhaps require video of the crime (shootings in public), eye witnesses can be wrong and have proven unreliable in several cases so maybe we just have to have either a confession or video. That may mean that 99% of the death penalties handed out in the US are invalid, I am ok with that, cancel them unless they meet the new requirments.

The key is once you raise this bar, no more years and years of delaying and waiting. If you have his confession, why put it off. Once the trial is over, the sentence given, 30 days. Then a single bullet to the head and its over. Why risk keeping someone as dangerous as that mass murderer around, and why risk innocent people guarding him. Why pay for the criminal to live when all they represent is a huge risk should they ever decide to have another go, on a guard or even another inmate.

Could the wrong guy cop to a crime? Yes, he could lie and the person who did it could have given him enough info to cover all the bases and allow an investigation to conclude that he was the criminal instead of the actual person. There is no fool proof system, if my family member copped to a crime and got the death penalty when I knew they were innocent, I'd still support the death penalty.

You talk about forgiveness, but there is nothing for me to forgive. I didn't know any of the victims, or their families, or their friends. What I know is, there is a person who is a known danger, truly dangerous to all of those around him. Why take the risks?

Re:Probably

[QuasiSteve]

Others seem to have focused on the '(financial) cost to society' part of your post, so I guess I'll leave that.

But..

And frankly, I see it as a release. Given the option of life without parole and death, I will take death over an 8'x6' room.

..seems a little naive. Have you ever been in prison (jail != prison)? Although not a vacation, you should see some documentaries about prisons and the people in them in most of the western world. You may get access to computers, you almost certainly have access to a library, most prisons have gyms. There's plenty to keep you busy and better yourself.

Most importantly, though.. if you decide that you really, really can't continue living within that system (i.e. without 'total' freedom to go and do as you please) you can still easily opt for death. It may not be as painless as a lethal injection, you may even have to do something you really wouldn't want to - but the option is always, always there.
Whatever method you'd choose, just make sure you succeed, because if you fail, you most likely would wish you were in that 8'x6' room.

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

Logical process works pretty well, but doesn't always cut it. Then again, a lot of "researched scientific facts" passed around in "education" are dogmatic bullshit, to the point that experts in the field don't believe them. Sometimes, experts in the field believe the dogmatic bullshit, and are regularly proven wrong, and nobody cares. For example: "Security always makes things harder" is a core concept in computer security. I've seen someone argue that ssh is inherently harder than telnet because, get this, you have to re-train telnet users to type 'ssh' instead of 'telnet'. What?

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

No, 'law-abiding' is intended to mean that the citizens are lawful and use guns for lawful use. They're criminals when they commit crimes. Shooting a motherfucker that's in your house coming at you and your kids with a samurai sword is not a crime.

Re:Probably

[firewrought]

I fear you're making a thinly veiled racist statement about blacks and hispanics, or a classist statement about poor people. Crime doesn't fit any subculture; every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers.

Every culture has honest people, peaceful people, thieves and murderers. But not in the same proportions. Life expectancy and quality-of-life metrics look much better for U.S. Asian women than it does for inner city Black males. You can use this to be an asshole and make racist arguments (or classist ones, or religious ones, etc.). However, you can also use this to increase your own life expectancy by avoiding certain parts of town at certain parts of the day. I think that's what rubycodez was primarily saying, but there is an unfortunate undertone that "there are two Americas and only one of them matters".

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

The problem here is the US isn't a country, it's a republic made up of tiny countries. More importantly, it's just immense with a varied culture--that is, parts of California are different than other parts of California, and same Texas, and a few other states.

Isolate various areas and you'll find that the correlation is very different. Let's talk about gun proliferation in Baltimore vs DC vs Detroit vs Dallas vs Austin vs Carrol County (MD). It's well known that gun proliferation in Baltimore has lead to a lot of murder, while Carrol County has ridiculously low crime. It's also, interestingly, well known that Baltimore at $13k/student per year supplies one of the shittiest school systems in the country, while Carrol County's school system at $5000 per student per year supplies one of the best. We can't, thus, justify that gun proliferation increases or decreases crime; there's a stronger argument that reducing school funding increases school performance, which of course is silly.

Re:Probably

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

We all know he is talking about Canadians.

As a Canadian. I deeply resent this slur against my people, and plan to politely beat you with a hockey stick until you apologize.

Re:Probably

[Q-Hack!]

Sadly this notion does have historical precedence. And does work to deter crime in those who have a bit of conscience left. However, for those who would feed their grandmother to the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal...

Re:Probably

[rubycodez]

so what? Japan doesn't allow civilian guns, but compare their suicide rate to places that do allow guns. their suicide rate beats our murder rate.

Re:Probably

[cpu6502]

>>> gun proliferation is great (despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries)

The USA rather stupidly classifies self-defense as "murder". Other countries do not. I don't know why the U.S. government does that but it taints the statistics. For example an old WW2 vet recently heard a guy break into his basement, grabbed a gun, and waited to see if the guy would be stupid enough to attack. Well he did, so the WW2 vet shot him. It was ruled "justifiable homicide". And hence adds to the USA murder/homicide statistic.

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

Coincidentally, the (legal) gun owners are, on average, much less likely to commit violent crimes.

Re:Probably

[desdinova 216]

it seems like "civilized people" sounds a lot like "no True Scotsman"

Re:Probably

[Bill_the_Engineer]

No, 'law-abiding' is intended to mean that the citizens are lawful and use guns for lawful use. They're criminals when they commit crimes. Shooting a motherfucker that's in your house coming at you and your kids with a samurai sword is not a crime.

I think you just proved my point, also I said nothing about self defense. If they're criminals when they commit crimes, what were they just prior to pulling the trigger? Let me guess, "law-abiding citizen".

Re:Probably

[rubycodez]

I have the balls to say people like you always raise the "racist" smokescreen when someone utters the truth about some of the inner-city subcultures we have in the USA. I could try to make you feel better by pointing out there are subcultures of black and hispanic people in the USA who are NOT in any way contributing to the violent crime in the USA, but instead of pandering to you I'm going to point out that your knee-jerk reaction and your mention of specific racial groups says something about you and the bad wiring between your ears.

Re:Probably

[rubycodez]

how about we judge people by their automatic raising of the "racist" smokescreen even if something else, like subculture, is mentioned. this proves the illogical irrational minds we have that can't have adult discourse on the subject of who is committing most of the violence in the united states.

Re:Probably

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I assume you mean Christians? They are a majority in this country unfortunately.

Can we start feeding the Christians to the lions again? I mean mostly the annoying born again ones who just will not shut up about how much they love Jesus.

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

What you're not factoring in your post is that under the new system, you're no longer executing innocent people (and you are executing innocent people, as past experience with death penalty shows, it's a statistical certainty). Which in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, completely outweighs any purported advantages.

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

Are you saying that cops shouldn't have the power to use lethal force against armed criminals?

Re:Probably

[icebraining]

The point is that there's a good reason for imprisoning someone, even if it costs some innocent people their freedom. There's no good reason for killing someone, taking away the possibility of giving at least some years of life back to the innocent person.

Re:Probably

[Warhawke]

1) It's not my argument but many legal scholars' that I've seen in law review articles, and I don't assume it's a very good argument. This is just the most persuasive argument I've seen where deterrence has been refuted.

2) I'd expect there to be a lurking variable that accounts for lower murder rates in other Western countries. The U.S.'s higher rates of violence I suspect are a sociological and cultural function, not a function of the U.S. court system. That said, I think the statistics exist independent of the justice system enacted, and that higher rates generally do not necessarily correlate with whether the abolition or instatement of a death penalty will affect deviation from those rates. Said more simply, just because the U.S. has higher murder rates comparatively does not necessarily mean that the abolition of the death penalty will lower (or raise) murder rates. There is evidence both ways, although personally I find little practical use for the death penalty. I just recognize that the majority of other people I know are much more prone to say, "Kill the f*cker" and mean it when the justice system doesn't grant them the penalty they want imposed.

Re:Probably

[icebraining]

Who says the pain and suffering has to be yours

Everyone who isn't just playing word games to make an argument.

Re:Probably

[gorzek]

No. The law makes exceptions for imminent threats of harm to others. Someone engaged in criminal behavior who is threatening the lives and safety of others may be killed in the immediate defense of those other people.

Imminence is the key point there.

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

According to this [gunpolicy.org], for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns

This is not a particularly useful metric, because for most people in US, either they have no guns, or they have more than one - and usually more than two. And it's not like owning more guns makes you progressively more likely to use them to hurt or kill someone. Either you have access to a gun and can do it, or you don't and can't. So the metric you really want is the percentage of households with guns.

How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?

How about you try that on some other countries, not just US? For example, Switzerland, where the number of households with guns is higher than US (because of that requirement to keep your service weapon at home), or Czech Republic where concealed carry is legal and widely practiced.

Your problem is that you're picking one differentiator amongs many, find a correlation on a limited set, and then claim that said correlation is causation. It's not. Crime correlates well with the overall poverty of the country, but also with wealth and income disparity. The reason why US has a relatively high crime rate in developed world is not because of guns, but rather because it has unusually high concentration of wealth, very low social mobility, and consequently many poor, disenfranchised people who don't have many prospects in life. This kind of thing breeds crime. Compare that to a well-functioning social democracy like Switzerland, and suddenly guns are a non-factor.

I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?

Why not do both? Self-defense is a human right, so enabling it is a moral imperative regardless of how often it's actually needed in practice.

Re:Probably

[Grimbleton]

The NRA is terrible and only terrible people willingly join the NRA.

SAF/JPFO/sometimes GOA forever.

Re:Probably

[Captain.Abrecan]

"despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries" How about you cite a source for your claim, citizen.

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

Not really.

In theory, it's perfectly okay to give guns to so-called "law-abiding citizens." In fact, it's okay to give guns to convicted felons, pederasts, and escaped serial murderers. As long as they're not going to murder anyone else, and just use the weapon as a defensive weapon or a white knighter, we're all better off with them armed and none's the worse except the criminals.

More importantly, in theory you want to keep guns away from people who will use them to commit murder. Murder is defined as an unjustifiable homicide, i.e. a homicide where a rational person wouldn't have determined that lethal force was necessary under those circumstances. It's justifiable if a rational person would determine lethal force is unnecessary as an observer or as a time-distant observer (i.e. hindsight), but where at that point in time the person would have lacked such judgment (for example, while under attack by someone with a knife, by which you could easily disarm them by hand, but at the time there is someone behind you and you fear that you can't evade the blade without it causing fatal harm to another person--but it "should" be blindingly obvious that bringing your arm in and up will easily clear the bystanders. Maybe you shoot this guy in the face instead, because at that exact moment you're just not that awesome).

We can't predict individuals. We can somewhat predict groups and society as a whole. For our purposes, then, we decide that people who have been law-abiding in the past and who do not have anger management issues or a history of violence are probably not going to walk around shooting people with their new toy. We tend to assume that violent convicts aren't trustworthy with weapons. Sometimes the violent con is better than we want to believe and has grown as a person; sometimes the nice person is just a really mean fucker on the inside, or just snaps one day. It's hit and miss. In any case, there is the attempt to get guns out of the hands of the bad ones.

In the end, the numbers that we care about aren't how many people were lawful before guns and became unlawful. The numbers we care about are how many people with guns used them in a lawful, socially acceptable, economically advantageous manner (i.e. the saving of innocent life is positive; the destruction of innocent life is negative; thus economically if we have more people safe and alive now than otherwise, we did it right). All other measurements are a matter of analysis--how many of our expected "law-abiding citizens" turned out as criminals? How many of the actually "law-abiding citizens" performed direct heroic acts? What level of deterrent did an armed citizenry provide? These are interesting numbers. The most interesting, however, is "how many innocent lives should have been lost given predictive trends, and how many were actually lost?" If more were lost than predicted, something is wrong; if fewer were lost, something is better than before.

Your argument is attempting to provide that nobody should have a gun legally because you just can't know that a specific individual won't use it for crime. My argument is that you CAN know that criminals will obtain guns illegally, and you CAN know that a subset of people who have guns will use them for legal purposes of defense of themselves and neighbors, and that arming these citizens is more ideal than not arming them. All other factors are other arguments--such as an armed citizenry being a dangerous climate for violent crime, a deterrent, etc. Criminals tend to move to or develop where crime is easier and less risky; that's great, but even if it weren't true we'd still be at an advantage having a strong, armed non-criminal citizenry.

Re:Probably

[TemporalBeing]

I can't find the reference I am seeking...but Biblically capital punishment is provided for long before the Torah even (which wasn't for another 600+ years after the Flood). That said, there is also a reference (the one I couldn't quickly find) where it mentions being punished by man is better than being punished by God - that is, escaping punishment by man under the law leaves one to punishment directly by God. That is not to say in neither case may Forgiveness, Grace, and Mercy be applied - they very well may be; but that appropriate punishment must be wielded.

Re:Probably

[eugene ts wong]

Is there a way to achieve those goals of the appeals during the initial investigation of the murder? I like the idea that people are willing to put some effort into knowing that he is guilty, but there must be a cheaper way to do it. Perhaps smaller processes can be vetted by a third party before the first judgement?

Re:Probably

[TemporalBeing]

Your argument makes very little sense given that Western countries which have abolished the death penalty have lower murder rates. You would assume that, in the absence of a death penalty, people would go out and get justice themselves, through deadly force. But this is not the case.

Compared to who? Singapore?

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

Nevertheless, this is the right to take the life of another, under certain conditions. So we can argue about the specific conditions that make the taking of life valid, but not the basic principle.I don't see how it's fundamentally morally different, especially from the perspective that "life is the most basic of all rights" and "if the state has the power to take that, then there is no power the state doesn't have".

Re:Probably

[TemporalBeing]

You have to compare: (1) Execution Costs + Prison Time Costs + Appellete Costs, to (2) Longer Prison Time Costs + Appellete Costs over the longer time period.

Don't think that just because someone doesn't get the death penalty that they will try to appeal less than those that are given the death penalty - in fact, they would have more time to do so by definition.

Re:Probably

[antdude]

FYI, it's = it is. :)

Re:Probably

[Uberbah]

So, you're a conservative, and thus proud of your willful ignorance and wanton asshattery rather than ashamed of it.

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

It's an alternative. You can take the prescribed punishment (N days in jail, a fine of X), or you can take a lesser one that comes with strings attached as set by the judge.

Re:Probably

[TemporalBeing]

Well, I only have a 10'x10' now, but I had one position where I had a 20'x20' cubicle; one of my boss's offices while I had that was around 10'x20', another was 10'x15'. I even had my own dual 8' conference tables.

Re:Probably

[hypergreatthing]

sounds like pvp in minecraft....

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, rape is so much easier to railroad through court. There's almost NO way to prove that something was actually rape without witnesses. There's no distinction from slightly rough sex (a lot of people like it rough) and rape, in terms of physical evidence. When a rape is convicted, it usually isn't proving that someone was raped, it is proving that there was likely sex had, and the person who made the accusations just has to say they didn't consent. There are lots of vindictive women out there (sexist yeah, but so is the law...if a man took a woman to court saying he got raped he'd probably be laughed out) who would bring this sort of wrath down on people. We're already seeing people who have been in jail for years get released because the accusation was false, how are you going to do that when they've already been murdered? Would you then let the false accuser off with simple perjury after they killed someone?

Re:Probably

[Uberbah]

The USA rather stupidly classifies self-defense as "murder".

Only if you stupidly classify shooting trespassers and fleeing burglars as "self-defense".

Re:Probably

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Your argument is attempting to provide that nobody should have a gun legally because you just can't know that a specific individual won't use it for crime. My argument is that you CAN know that criminals will obtain guns illegally, and you CAN know that a subset of people who have guns will use them for legal purposes of defense of themselves and neighbors, and that arming these citizens is more ideal than not arming them. All other factors are other arguments--such as an armed citizenry being a dangerous climate for violent crime, a deterrent, etc. Criminals tend to move to or develop where crime is easier and less risky; that's great, but even if it weren't true we'd still be at an advantage having a strong, armed non-criminal citizenry.

I made no such argument. I just pointed out that your statement was nonsense used as political rhetoric since it automatically excludes all people who used a gun in a crime, despite the fact that perpetrators were in fact law-abiding citizens when they acquired the gun.

Now I'll point out that your scary story does not align well with reality.

Your rhetoric creates a straw man that the average US citizen has a high risk of home invasion, when the FBI crime statistics say otherwise. In fact you are most likely be victimized by someone you know than a complete stranger. This includes domestic disputes and arguments that got out of hand and deadly because one of the participants had ready access to a firearm. Unfortunately in a lot of cases, the bad guy was the one with the gun. Also, your scary story doesn't take into account the lower crime rates of other western countries that do have restrictions on gun ownership.

Re:Probably

[UnknownSoldier]

> Having access to a firearm is the most common method of suicide in the United States,

Blaming the symptom doesn't fix the root cause. ANY tool can be used for either good or bad but by your logic we should ban cars because they kill the same amount of people as guns.

"In 2009 there were 31,236 gun deaths nationwide for a rate of 10.19 per 100,000 and 36,361 motor vehicle
deaths (both occupant and pedestrian) nationwide for a rate of 11.87 per 100,000 (both totals include data only for
the 50 states). Source: WISQARS database, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars.pdf

Re:Probably

[fair_n_hite_451]

I was going to threaten him with that same punishment, but then figured out that my dog sled was frozen to the igloo driveway ... so I'll sit here on my chesterfield and steam politely instead.

Re:Probably

[UnknownSoldier]

/sarcasm Oh, that's a great philosophy - I'll be an asshole because these other people are not able to respect my difference of opinions so I'll disrespect theirs too.

Stay classy.

Re:Probably

[UnknownSoldier]

Can anyone clarify the event / story / background / context on this "history" please?

TIA.

Re:Probably

[mapsjanhere]

First, it can't be punishment, as there has been no conviction yet. It could be a condition of parole, or part of a gag order, to not POST on facebook, or any other media for that matter. But irrevocably deleting an account prior to conviction seems excessive. But as judges enjoy absolute immunity for their actions of the bench, abuse of discretion is rampant in the US. As the defendant has to agree to the conditions, everything goes.

Re:Probably

[camperdave]

We all know he is talking about Canadians.

As a Canadian. I deeply resent this slur against my people, and plan to politely beat you with a hockey stick until you apologize.

As a Canadian. I deeply resent this slur against my people, and plan to politely beat you with a hockey stick until I apologize.

FTFY.

Re:Probably

[Hardhead_7]

How many innocent people have we wound up executing? We'll never know.

How many innocent people have we wound up throwing in prison until they die? We'll never know.

Maybe we won't know an exact number, but we know the number is less. Because if/when exonerating evidence turns up they can take advantage of it by, you know, still being alive.

Re:Probably

[niftymitch]

A court can order your execution, I'd imagine they can order the deletion of an online account.

Not so sure.... not so quick.
A court can issue orders within the law. I doubt the law has
any mention about facebook (yet).

Deletion of an on line account is an assault on a persons identity
and that person's ability to communicate with their community.
i.e. banishment.

With on line payment and commerce so tightly coupled today this ruling reaches
into deep dark waters.

I think the judge has overreacted.

Contempt of court for LOL perhaps.

Newspapers may have to pay a fine and print a retraction but
vanish from the face of the ear

Re:Probably

[RoTNCoRE]

But she wasn't. She shot her own brother dead with a shotgun as a teenager, ran off with the gun and tried to steal a car from a dealership with it. The police somehow failed to charge her - dooming those people years later.

Crazy people happen - we need to notice them, especially when slapping us in the face.

Re:Probably

[ewibble]

he didn't get 21 year in prison, he got life quote from the articile:

"The five-judge panel in the Oslo district court convicted Breivik, 33, of terrorism and premeditated murder and ordered him imprisoned for a period between 10 and 21 years, the maximum allowed under Norwegian law. Such sentences can be extended as long as an inmate is considered too dangerous to be released, and legal experts say Breivik will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison."

Re:Probably

[Bysshe]

No... busdrivers are the busculture.

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

How is this news? If we had a "high" risk of any kind of violent crime, population would be dropping off rather quickly. Consider it takes about 12 years for a human child to become fertile for sexual reproduction, plus almost 1 year in the womb, and really we don't let people boink them until they're 18 (or 16, ish), and even still around 24, 28, 30, etc is more usual for having a child. It takes about 25 years for one generation to produce the next? What would 25 years of wearing down the current generation do to the population? In 25 years we'd lose half the population if you were only 97.25% likely to survive 1 year without being murdered.

We're inherently arguing over something quite low risk. In my city, for example, you're 98.875% likely to live for 25 years without being murdered. 99.95% for one year.

That doesn't mean that changing the climate won't reduce the risk of violent crime. 300 murders per year in a city of a population of 660,000 is different than 50 murders, or 5 murders. Also, personally, my house has battering ram marks on the back door; I have a fucking awesome steel and hardwood back door in a sturdy door frame, so it's taken a dozen home invasion attempts involving a heavy kinetic mass and still hasn't flinched. I don't know anybody, I have no friends, I have steel bars on my windows and security doors. Me and the neighbors, we get along; these people banging on my door, they don't know me, I just happen to be in the wrong place.

That politicians tote and twist the "law-abiding citizens" statement to indicate that they KNOW who is and isn't going to commit a crime in the future has no bearing on the actual argument. What's important is probability. Just like I'm 98.875% likely to live here for 25 more years without getting shot, it's also--let's say, and this is made up for illustrative purposes--99.95% likely that arming a particular currently believed "law-abiding citizen" will not result in a violent crime being committed with the given weapon. That makes it 0.05% likely that said citizen will, in fact, turn out to be a criminal and shoot someone because he's mad his penis is too small. Okay, but 99.95% of the people we gave guns are wandering around with guns, and some very small fraction (a dozen or so) heard this gunshot a half a block away, and are now all armed and ready. If this guy comes out shooting at everyone because he's an insane whack job, someone will cap him.

It's kind of untenable to assume that even 50% of our population would get guns and start shooting at innocents. I mean, in that case, really, we don't have a viable society. 99.95% may be high, or it may be low--it could be 99.97% would be well-behaved and not use their guns for murder; it could be more of a 95% thing. You've increased the harmlessly (or helpfully, we hope) armed citizenry by a large number and the harmfully armed criminal citizenry by a smaller number--that's a predictable effect. The argument here is solely over whether or not this creates more or less murder.

Re:Probably

[drkim]

I like the economical Chinese method:
They shoot the prisoner with a single bullet...

...and then bill the family for the cost of the bullet.

Re:Probably

[drkim]

cite at least five, then

Easy!
100% of executed criminals have never again committed a crime.

Re:Probably

[RobbieCrash]

The Switzerland argument is not very good. If you want to talk Swiss firearms laws in America, then prepare to have your home inspected regularly to ensure that your guns are stored safely and that your ammunition is sealed and unused. Given that the US generally frowns on pop government inspections of private property, I don't think that comparison is apt. Also, the Czech comparison, not so much either. While CC is legal there, the requirements for obtaining anything other than BB guns and the like are significantly higher than anything in the US, and the percentage of legally armed citizens is significantly lower, 200K out of 11M. Also, citation for widely practised? I've heard this bandied around by people who're arguing that guns aren't the problem before, but never seen anything corroborating it. But yeah, guns aren't the problem, that's true; an impoverished, uneducated population with easy access to firearms is.

Your problem is you're not grasping my post.

The entire point of my post was that arming the general citizenry isn't going to eliminate violent/gun crime. You need to look at the causes of crime, which you pretty much nailed, and eliminate those. Arming everyone while ignoring the root causes of gangs, and poverty isn't going to do a thing to the crime rate, except maybe make it tick up a few notches.

I'm personally 100% in favour of a fully armed lawful citizenry, but not as a deterrent to violent/disorganized crime. It's not a solution to that problem.

Re:Probably

[tftp]

I personally know several people whose homes were invaded, and I have far more stories from direct witnesses (such as from neighbors.) I don't know what FBI has to say about crimes that fall under authority of states, but there are other words to that effect:

According to a United States Department of Justice report: 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions. 1 of every 5 homes will experience a break-in or home invasion. That's over 2,000,000 homes! According to Statistics Canada, there has been an average of 289,200 home invasions annually over the last 5 years. Statistically, there are over 8,000 home invasions per day in North America. According to Statistics U.S.A., there was an average of 3,600,000 home invasions annually between 1994 and 2000.

In fact you are most likely be victimized by someone you know than a complete stranger.

That is irrelevant, unless you prefer a stranger to victimize you instead of someone you know.

Unfortunately in a lot of cases, the bad guy was the one with the gun.

You are undermining your own case. If what you said is true then we need to issue a gun to everyone.

Also, your scary story doesn't take into account the lower crime rates of other western countries that do have restrictions on gun ownership.

It's better to compare apples vs. other apples. Sure, there may be less crime in Japan, armed and unarmed. But you need to have Japanese people to realize that difference. Crimes are committed by people - not by territories, not by machines. This means that comparisons are valid only within the same society - and even that is not detailed enough. Statistics among gangbangers will tell you that they all own weapons illegally, all commit crimes with them, and are likely to be killed by their accomplices. Statistics among 90 y/o grannies will tell you that some of them own legal weapons, are very unlikely to commit crimes with them, and they will use those weapons to protect themselves and their families.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Like HELL it does.

Once you add in all the legal bills incurred during the appeals process you may well find capital punishment to be more expensive than life in prison.

Not to mention the obvious factor of mistakes being buried forever. With life, there's the chance that a mistake can be exposed and a miscarriage of justice avoided. Once someone's dead, however, the legal system usually doesn't give a shit if a mistake was made, and anyone on the sly who railroaded someone into death row gets away with murder.

This, by the way, is why in some cases, perjury during a capital case is itself a capital crime. Swear falsely and get someone executed? Too late to bring him back, so the best they can do is put the lying ass coon dog in the ground with the guy they got buried.

Just lock them up and let them decide for themselves when or even if they want to be euthanized. Prisoner consent + executive execution warrant = much less of a legal mess.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Capital punishment in a DUI case, not so much.

Capital punishment in a booze aggravated case of vehicular homicide? Better.

Re:Probably

[BronsCon]

I'm a dyslexic typist, but I somehow think you still know what I meant.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

A good punishment for rapists would be castration.

Same mentality as chopping hands off of thieves.

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

The Switzerland argument is not very good. If you want to talk Swiss firearms laws in America, then prepare to have your home inspected regularly to ensure that your guns are stored safely and that your ammunition is sealed and unused.

I was not talking about laws in detail, but rather the general notion that more guns = bad. I'm not convinced that inspections are all that helpful, either. As noted in another thread hereabouts, crimes committed using legal firearms are pretty rare in US as well.

The entire point of my post was that arming the general citizenry isn't going to eliminate violent/gun crime. ... I'm personally 100% in favour of a fully armed lawful citizenry, but not as a deterrent to violent/disorganized crime. It's not a solution to that problem.

Oh yes, I can certainly agree with that. I see your point now - yes, showing any country where guns are widespread alongside crime is sufficient to debunk the argument that guns solve the crime problem.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Sodomizing someone in a confined space is not a state sanctioned punishment.

It is a blatant failure of prison security, a side effect of skimping on isolation measures in the name of operating a prison profitably.

Even if the victim deserves to be raped (which I strongly disagree with anyway), why does the guy doing the raping get free sex? If you want pussy on demand outside of prison you either have to be married, have a girlfriend, or cough up money to a prostitute. Why should a hardened criminal get better bargains on sex inside prison than outside?

Prison rape is a side effect of skimping on security.

Re:Probably

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

That is probably the first time I ever laughed out loud at a FTFY post. Well done.

Re:Probably

[HapSlappy_2222]

I wonder if there's some mastermind that triggered a crime to occur after his death brings your number to 99.999% instead.

Re:Probably

[HapSlappy_2222]

Any type of crime deterrent has two factors in play. First, of course, is just how punishing the punishment is. Second, though, and it always seems to get overlooked, is how likely you are to get caught.

As an example, take piracy. We just saw a few stories where some dude has to pay about 4 krillion billion dollars for 2 and 1/3 songs. People still download all the time, because the likelihood of being "caught" is very low.

If you knew that you ran the risk of death for shoplifting, but there was a lottery's chance in hell of you getting caught, the significance of the punishment goes way, way down.

Then, you also have human nature that mucks further with this. Most criminal masterminds are only genius in their own heads, so they commit the perfect crime, with officer not-so-friendly knocking on their door 20 minutes later. Human nature STILL mis-represents the risk, further diluting the deterrent value of a punishment.

The best deterrent is decreasing the chance you'll get away with it, which is pretty obvious when you think about it.

Re:Probably

[Sir_Sri]

It saves the tax payer thousands upon thousands of dollars.

Except that it doesn't.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

People who are on death row have every incentive to save their own life in protest, and your legal system has to work hard to be sure it's not executing the wrong person, so you need multiple trials and so on. With a prison sentence no on feels any great obligation to listen to repeated pleas for clemency.

And frankly, I see it as a release. Given the option of life without parole and death, I will take death over an 8'x6' room.

False choice much? Not all prison is a single lonely cell. Lots of people with serious crimes get various forms of parole, visitation, and, as crazy as it sounds, people in prison can actually make friends and have sort of lives within the confines of walls. Not all of them certainly, but a well designed prison system that's exactly what happens - you're trying to prepare people to behave properly when they leave, not punish them for how they behaved before they got there.

Keeping people in jail for life, now THAT is not civilized.

Depends on the jail doesn't it? A jail of people 70+ and a retirement home are, remarkably, not that much different. And the state is on the hook either way, since someone who just spent 25 years in prison is unlikely to have much in the way of assets to retire on.

Also, you only incarcerate people for their entire lives if they pose a serious threat to society for their entire lives, at least in civilized countries. Anders Brevik could conceivably be out of jail at age 53 (the maximum term for any prisoner in Norway, though he is subject to 'containment' which is a lot like life in prison, where he'll be stuck as long as people thing he's a threat to society). Assuming he becomes less of a racist raving nutter in the next 10 years he might even qualify for parole.

You've made a nice narrative, based on an assertion one can only assume was 'not intended to be a factual statement' and two false choices. That doesn't help the debate about death penalty policy. Now if you want to compare death penalty policy in say, Iran, Saudi Arabia or China to Europe then sure, your assertions might have some validity, but they come with their own complications, and the death penalty is not the most serious problem facing their justice systems.

Re:Probably

[HapSlappy_2222]

Actually, I'm going to correct myself. The best deterrent is education. Folks who can get what they want by following the rules more easily than breaking the rules won't break the rules. Generally speaking, anyway.

There are those nutjobs that like being bad for the sake of being bad, but nothing's gonna deter those jerks.

Re:Probably

[HapSlappy_2222]

They actually do a chemical castration in some cases. Pretty interesting stuff, actually. I think CA was the first to do so.

http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12443091

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

the law has shown that there are limits to punishment if they cause a undo burden on a person.

i guess i should correct a fellow foreign user of English: it's an undue burden. i know this is unfair to people like me and you whose native language is very different from English, but it's a fact: severe errors like this one, especially if they're this comical, undermine your credibility in a debate. after all, if you cannot write proper English, why should anyone take your opinions of law seriously?

Re:Probably

[shiftless]

How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?

How about I'm not giving you my guns, and if you try to take them I'll shoot you in the face? How much more clear can I make this? Fuck off with your gun control.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Let the castle doctrine and general self defense take care of it.

Some madman comes my way with a gun hell bent on killing? I'm going to put my own life on the line to stop him. If he dies because he was an idiot and bit off more than he can chew, serves him right.

If I die, I die a hero.

But what would the point be of me surviving only to get locked up for manslaughter?

Being able to defend yourself from a violent crime is one of the fringe benefits of the right to bear arms.

Re:Probably

[tftp]

You make it sound like a "court" (whatever that is) can wave its hand and order things like executions and censorship.

The court cannot punish you until you are convicted. However the court can order measures that are aimed at protecting the peace or at protecting the participants of the process. For example, a slasher can be placed under arrest; a mandatory medical evaluation may be ordered; the witness may be placed in protective custody; all participants may be instructed to forgo their right to free speech for a while (a gag order;) and so on.

Judges are supposed to be humans who do things to maintain law and order among their electors. This gives them a lot of authority that is minimally constrained but maximally questioned (you can appeal to higher courts.) Judge is supposed to understand the problem, the victim and the perpetrator, and order whatever actions are necessary in every specific case. Otherwise we would not need judges; a computer would do.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

I agree, driving a bus over someone is much more dramatic than simply shooting them.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Some have said that there was already a terrorist attack in the making, and the propaganda film was used as a convenient excuse to cover up for the true motives for it.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Bull fucking shit.

Ever heard of "white collar crime"?

Poor people just get caught easier.

Re:Probably

[shiftless]

In Alabama there's no hardship license whatsoever. Suspended? Revoked? Sorry- you're not even legally eligible for a hearing.

In Michigan they do have one, but they also have a "legal system" that fines you for your "crime", then after that's "taken care of" they turn around and mails you a letter from the state claiming you own them money too. ("Driver responsibility fee.") If you don't pay they take your license and then threaten to go after your bank accounts too.

This country is run by criminals.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

Sad but true.

Which makes me wonder why the order was issued to her instead of Facebook.

Re:Probably

[shiftless]

c. gets you done for "contempt of court", so that's the stupid thing to do. You do what the judge said, or you fight it legally, but ignoring it gets you into trouble.

Which is why we need more people to do it. The way you stand up to bullies is to fight them, not cower meekly.

Re:Probably

[couchslug]

Compare WI demographics to other States.

Re:Probably

[Obfuscant]

A deterrent means that the threat of the punishment prevents crime from happening in the first place

No, it doesn't. A deterrent is a "negative influence". A deterrent means that it reduces the likelyhood of that crime being committed. Nothing can prevent a murder if the murderer is persistent and capable and either ignores the deterrents or considers the punishment worth the crime.

A locked door is a deterrent to crime. The death penalty is a deterrent to murder. You do not argue that nobody should have doors on their houses, or that nobody should lock them because they don't prevent burglaries, do you? (The only burglary I've been victim of took place through a locked door. Tell me how a deterrent prevents a crime, please.)

Re:Probably

[amorsen]

In some cases, this was enough to get the defendant to plead to a lower crime, with life in prison without possibility of parole as the agreed punishment.

Right, let us threaten people into admitting guilt, so we don't have to deal with the nastiness of an actual trial. It works great with witches, I hear.

Re:Probably

[ewibble]

The other thing is how does being brought up in a society that values life effect the amount of people that commit these crimes in the first place. I have just read some studies about deterrent effect of the death penalty (inconclusive) but they all seem to look at the immediate effect. So I have no scientific basis for my conclusion but I would expect living in a society that respects everyone's right to life would reduce murder in the long run. Yes you would always get exceptions but hopefully fewer of them.

Re:Probably

[RobbieCrash]

This type of retort is why there's a gun control argument.

Re:Probably

[Holladon]

Shooting a motherfucker that's in your house coming at you and your kids with a samurai sword is not a crime.

What if it's just someone in your house running at you but you're not sure if he has a samurai sword? What if he's not really running at you, but just walking faster than you're comfortable with? What if he's not really walking toward you, but he's in your house and you don't know why and now you're feeling twitchy? What if he's not in your house, but he's on your property walking toward your house and you get a bad feeling about him? What if he's just hanging out in your yard, not threatening you, but you tell him to leave and he doesn't? Where's the line between when shooting him is criminal and when it isn't?

The answer, of course, is that it depends on the jurisdiction you live in. Because when you use a term like "criminal," you're not talking about whether something is right or wrong, you're talking about whether it's legal or illegal. In other words, what might strike most decent human beings as unacceptable, uncivilized, and completely wrong could nonetheless be perfectly legal; by the same token, something laudable and decent and good could be technically illegal. Talking about guns as a matter of *criminal* conduct is not terribly useful, particularly given that, often, simply owning a gun in and of itself may be a criminal act, depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics of the ownership in question. That's the point you seem to have missed. To YOU it may be obvious what we should regard as "lawful" use of a gun, but you're using the wrong word to communicate the underlying principle you're trying to convince people of -- just like the NRA does, as the other commenter pointed out.

It's all well and good for you to be a gun apologist, but don't be intellectually dishonest in the process.

Re:Probably

[Holladon]

You have a lot of references in your comment to what the data purportedly show (or don't), and no links to any examples of such data. Care to provide them? Personally, I think it's only responsible to back up your opinions with facts when you accuse countries with stricter gun control of being "uncivilized" for it.

Re:Probably

[wisnoskij]

You make it sound like the worse part of prison rape is that they do not deserve sex.
The problem with isolation is that isolation is far more harmful to the psychi than rape. Personally, I do not know why everyone complains about it so much. But that is just how it is.

Re:Probably

[Yakasha]

It's always funny when you tell proponents of the death penalty that it costs a huge amount more.

Because most people don't understand the costs, or how they're calculated incorrectly.
Take this one, from Washington State for example, which is pretty typical.
It calculates the average cost of housing the DP inmate at $43,352 per year, and a "non-DP" inmate at $35,897 per year.

My main problem with that calculation: The "non-DP" average cost includes all the low-level, non-violent, low-security inmates... which potential DP candidates are NOT. They would almost definitely get the same cell and the same guards as they do now... with the other LWOP inmates. So the cost of the LWOP should be the same: $43,352. Even if you want to say 20, 50 or 80% of them would be transferred to lower security facilities, the cost per year will be $35,897 + 20, 50, or 80% of the difference.

Second, the average cost of housing an inmate assumes a younger, healthier inmate. DP inmates rarely reach the golden years (55+) of their lives where health care costs increase the cost of housing an inmate substantially.
The CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, sorry can't find a link for this one) estimate the cost of housing an inmate aged 55+ is double that of younger inmates. Age 80+ means triple the costs. I doubt the DP per year costs figures that in. I don't think the average per year non-DP cost figures it either.

Lastly, none of these figures count for inflation. Killing somebody in 14 years (or 20 for California) stops the inflation game early. If right now it costs $35k/year to house the former DP inmates, 20 years from now it will cost $80k/year. While a DP inmate would be dead then, a LWOP still has another 20 years of $80k/year to go (neverminding that by the end of the 2nd 20 year stint the per year cost is $190k/year)

Re:Probably

[Holladon]

I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?

Because that costs money we're using to build corporate-sponsored gated communities to protect the important people from the lower-class peons. Why solve the problem when it's so much easier to just insulate yourself from it through invisible upward wealth transfers?

Re:Probably

[superdave80]

How many innocent people have we wound up throwing in prison until they die?

Because if/when exonerating evidence turns up they can take advantage of it by, you know, still being alive.

I don't think so.

Re:Probably

[lightknight]

Hmm. The article seems to imply that she is being punished primarily for her posting of a stupid comment (Freedom of Speech), rather than the DUI / accident that she was involved in.

Taken out of context:

A Kentucky woman’s cavalier ‘LOL” comment on Facebook about an alleged drunk driving accident that police believe she caused led a judge to send her to jail for two days and force her off the social networking site.

Re:Probably

[Bill_the_Engineer]

A better source of information: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Re:Probably

[Holladon]

They did this to Kevin Mitnick. He was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone.

The difference is that the order there at least bore some relation to the crime he was charged with. I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that the woman was charged with having used Facebook to commit a crime. A tort, perhaps -- but then it's up to the teens/parents to sue her for emotional distress and seek an order in civil court enjoining her from using facebook. Even if the judge was merely trying to keep her from harassing the victims and their families, there's a much narrower way to do that, for instance, by ordering her not to contact them, or not to post anything that could be seen by them or someone they know. Ordering her to DELETE her facebook account, on the other hand, seems sweepingly overbroad and totally disconnected from the DUI she was charged with.

Re:Probably

[HiThere]

That is (I hope) less true as more people experience their own embarassing mistake. Yes, people will still snicker at the mistake, but they also know that an occasional fat-finger (or thought) will slip by. Even given the preview button. So unless such errors are frequent, they shouldn't distract unduly from the point you were making.

In admission that I have the same problem, I'm not going to preview this post...and acknowledge that it's a gamble.

Re:Probably

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It's better to compare apples vs. other apples. Sure, there may be less crime in Japan, armed and unarmed. But you need to have Japanese people to realize that difference.

For the record, Japan is considered an eastern country. You may want to compare the US with the United Kingdom, United States has a murder rate of 4.2%. United Kingdom has a murder rate of 1.2%. Even Australia only has a murder rate of 1.0%.

Re:Probably

[tftp]

It is amazing how hard some people work, trying to accuse guns of crimes that humans commit.

Surely you don't believe the US is significantly culturally different from Canada, UK, Scandinavia or Australia? Of course there are some differences. There are differences amongst different regions within the US. One of the major things they have in common though is their love of guns.

I am familiar with several of those cultures and I know what I speak of. The US culture is the most violent, with guns or without. It is on par with Afghan culture, or Somalia's, in terms of violence. Your average, modern European can't hold a candle to that. If you deny that Canadian culture is more peaceful than US culture... I suggest that you visit both countries and see for yourself.

Someone gets robbed, and their natural response is "I need an assault rifle".

A strawman. Not even a good one.

Re:Probably

[Seumas]

It's just another one of those idiot judges who do things like "I'm gonna make you wear a sandwich board and mark around all weekend outside of the Walmart declaring that you're a shoplifter". Just fucking punish people for crime's they've committed and stop trying to play a motherfucking "reality" TV judge, you twats.

Re:Probably

[tftp]

It is very important to know who commits those crimes. In the USA most crimes are committed by unemployed and unemployable outcasts who largely come from ruins of black families. Significant number of crimes is committed by illegal immigrants from Central America. We can discuss why those groups exist - who is responsible for destruction of black families, who is responsible for attracting criminals (and non-criminals) from Latin America, and what to do about it. But for the moment it is sufficient to say that the high crime rate in the USA is caused by high proportion of criminals. If UK and AU have fewer criminals then they have fewer crimes. Perhaps those countries are doing a better job in education, for example?

Note also that the US-MX border acts as an osmotic filter. Criminals from Central America *want* to come to the USA because this gives them many advantages. They are invisible here; the territory is so large that they can create their own gangs; the local police does not speak their language. And finally, "that's where the money is" - there are far more targets for robbery, theft and extortion than in Guatemala. As result you end up with more criminals in the USA.

Re:Probably

[SniperJoe]

I'm sorry, but you are not correct on your last statement. The Bill of Rights precludes The Government from infringing on the public's free speech, but that protection doesn't apply to private citizens. You do not have the right to free speech in "all forums" as you stated. If you're protesting on private property, you can be kicked off. If you're on a private radio station and the owner doesn't like what you're saying, that person can remove you. If you're saying something on a forum, you can be banned.

Even in the case you cited, a judge could in fact order you to whitewash a wall covered in graffiti (or artwork), even if it WAS your wall, if you had previously signed an HOA covenant in your deed that precludes walls other than white.

However, I think we fundamentally agree on the base issue that a judge ordering a Facebook account to be deleted prior to trial is ridiculous without some extenuating circumstances.

Re:Probably

[thoughtlover]

The death penalty is very civilized. It saves the tax payer thousands upon thousands of dollars. And frankly, I see it as a release. Given the option of life without parole and death, I will take death over an 8'x6' room. Keeping people in jail for life, now THAT is not civilized.

Fuck that... do the crime, do your time.. and no little death penalty is going to get in the way of you getting out of here any earlier than you think you can. No one escapes bureaucracy... Life is suffering, no matter if it's inside an 8'x6' jail cell (or a cubicle). But really, I'm against the death penalty. I don't think I could ever pull that switch or press that button that kills another person (much less the one that lets the nukes fly).

Re:Probably

[BMOC]

Most nations? What metric is that? I look at that map and the 3 most populated nations on earth all allow it. Sure if you include all the tiny underpopulated nations in Europe and elsewhere as part of your counting of viewpoint on the subject, you can get any number you want. In the places where a seriously large population exists, the death penalty is allowed. I think my metric is much better. Humans are not civilized, they treat each other like shit and that's not changing anytime soon. The nations that have to deal with the most human-on-human violent crime all allow it.

Re:Probably

[Anonymous Coward]

*ugh* for the love of FSM the word you want is UNDUE, not "undo." Major grammar FAIL.

Re:Probably

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, much probably depends on terminology. What exactly do you mean by "erosion of liberty"? Much also depends on your point of view.

What about other peoples' liberties? What about their liberty to go about their business without fear that a serial murderer will escape and start terrorizing victims again? What about their liberty to NOT want to feed, house, and give free TV to such a slimebucket for life?

There is a lot to be said for the argument that keeping someone in maximum-security prison for life is not as humane as death.

Re:Probably

[Rich0]

If we are going to execute someone, should we really not give them full due process of law? Taking a life is the most extreme action available to our justice system.

Frankly we should be giving people better than what currently is due process of law for the least of our offenses, let alone for capital crimes. Perhaps taking a life is the most extreme action available, but even fairly trivial crimes are met with extreme actions these days.

The death penalty is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem - we don't care about justice - we care about security theater.

Re:Probably

[Rich0]

What I don't get is why people sentenced to death should have any more access to appeals than those sentenced to life in prison. If there is some merit to the appeal it should be heard, and if not it shouldn't be. I think the fact that we don't spend so much money on people not sentenced to death is a potential sign that we just brush problems with their cases under the rug.

Re:Probably

[geminidomino]

Except there's still the creepers to contend with to make said swords. And with all the lawyers out of work, I expect the former will experience a huge breeding surge...

Re:Probably

[geminidomino]

I ask this genuinely (not to make a political point or snarky comment, since I honestly don't have a horse in this race):

Did those murder stats include the executions? (depending on who compiled them and which side they were on, it doesn't seem impossible that they would, for the sake of the sound bite).

Or was it attributed more to that, when faced with the possibility of the death penalty, criminals opted to leave fewer witnesses around to tell tales?

Re:Probably

[Rich0]

Honestly, the way we treat it these days I tend to think yes.

I'm all for deterring crime. I'm also for not having huge swaths of our population that have no way to support themselves but no social network to fall back on. Somebody convicted of crime loses access to any decent paying job. So instead of supporting himself and presumably doing something useful for society in the process and paying taxes, now the guy might work for minimum wage, pays little in taxes, receive public benefits of one sort or another, and if they are bored with their job perhaps they become a more serious criminal. All because one day the guy lost it and beat his wife or hit somebody or whatever it was. All of those things should be punished, but at some point you have to move on.

Adults really are just like children - they have bad days and good days and when they do stupid stuff you need to whack them and then get on with it.

You could actually make an argument for corporal punishment as a result. Do something dump and you get whipped a few times. Costs little to administer, you'll NEVER forget the lesson, but after a day or two of recovery you can go right back to work. Frankly it seems a lot better all around than sticking people in a cell for months on end while they lose their job, their family loses the house, and they probably still get all beat up anyway.

Re:Probably

[Rich0]

Frankly, the current legal system makes simply being accused of a crime an undue burden and so on. Think that not having a drivers license will make it hard to find employment? How about having your name in the newspaper, being fired, having to show up to court, having to come up with tens of thousands of dollars, and so on? Your life is ruined well before you get to a verdict.

Re:Probably

[drkim]

I wonder if there's some mastermind that triggered a crime to occur after his death brings your number to 99.999% instead.

In that case, I imagine the 'preparation to trigger that crime' would be the criminal act, which would occur before execution. Interesting puzzle though...

Re:Probably

[toQDuj]

... and much more likely to accidentally or deliberately shoot themselves. (slashdot a few weeks ago).

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

Sure, just as people who own cars are more likely to die in a car accident. But that's a choice that everyone should be able to make for themselves in a free country.

Re:Probably

[Linkreincarnate]

RIght until the price of helium skyrockets... http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/med-tech/why-is-there-a-helium-shortage-10031229

Re:Probably

[bill_mcgonigle]

Any large group of people will have at least a few members that are VERY "uncivilized". And within that small portion is where the death penalty occasionally needs to be applied.

Only in our current model of a government/vengeance society. There are models where they effectively wind up in a geographic region that's exclusively for them and they probably work in a factory or doing similar labor to survive. Effective isolation like prison, except voluntary, but only because nobody else will have them.

The death penalty conundrum is hotly debated and logically inconsistent because it's an edge case failure that shows the underlying theory of our society is incorrect. It's like cycles and epicycles got alot of predictions right, but they were still fundamentally wrong.

Re:Probably

[RobbieCrash]

By the same token, most places aren't countries then. Western Canada is completely different than central or Eastern, north England is different than south, etc.

Regarding the Maryland stats Baltimore City schools are 13K, but Carrol county is 11K, a significant difference, but not that significant. Carrol County is also significantly more affluent ($81K median income) than Baltimore ($39K).

Spending in most of the affluent Maryland counties seems to be significantly less than in similarly populated counties with larger lower-income families, and even by district within counties. Howard County for example has million dollar houses a ten minute walk from community housing. You have schools like Centennial, where my younger sisters went, as one of the best high schools in Maryland, and less than 4 miles away is Wilde Lake High, where less than half of the students pass standardized test. People who are financially better off have more resources, obviously, so things like reduced funding lunches aren't very common, which significantly reduces the expense per student.

Again, the issue comes back to poverty. Increasing/decreasing the amount of guns available doesn't address the issue. Arming the entire population certainly won't end gun violence.

I was looking further into the Florida/Texas comparison as well. In 2010 Florida had a murder rate of 5.2/1000 people, Texas 5.0, Maryland 7.4, none of which are have a huge variance. Certainly not one that could be attributed to shoot back legislation, because New York, with oppressive gun control laws, was a 4.9, California, with significantly more repressive gun control laws was at 4.0.

However, DC may offer a pretty good argument for arming everyone, since they were at 127.

Regardless, guns aren't the problem, I agree. But they're not the solution either.

Re:Probably

[green1]

The thing about capitol punishment is that the alternative (life in prison) isn't something people aspire to either. So it's not like people commit a murder because they know it will get them life in prison instead of death. People don't commit any crime by thinking that they are ok with the punishment, they commit the crime thinking that they won't get caught.
As far as deterrents go, studies have shown that the perceived odds of being caught have a far larger impact than the punishment itself. So much so that people are more concerned about a guaranteed slap on the wrist, than a possible major punishment. Unfortunately though, it's not easy to increase the perception that people will be caught simply because people aren't really rational about these things (the statistics on solved murder cases is good enough that you'd have to be a fool to think you would get away with it, but you won't likely find a convicted murderer say they knew they'd get caught but committed the crime anyway).

Re:Probably

[green1]

I'll start off by staying that I agree with you fully, however I do have to point out something.

Human nature STILL mis-represents the risk, further diluting the deterrent value of a punishment.
  The best deterrent is decreasing the chance you'll get away with it, which is pretty obvious when you think about it.

Unfortunately you show the problem with this statement in your own post. the best deterrent is decreasing the *perceived* chance you'll get away with it. Which is quite different from decreasing the *actual* chance you'll get away with it. The statistics on solved murder cases show that the odds of getting away with it are much lower than almost anyone would gamble on (especially with the stakes as they are (even when the death penalty isn't involved, most people wouldn't choose life in prison if given the option of freedom)) And yet people still commit the crime.
It's an interesting psychological and sociological problem, I suspect even if we caught 100% of all murderers, there would still be murders because people would still think that they could beat the system.

Re:Probably

[Genda]

The death penalty is barbarous and unfairly applied. Wealthy people who can afford fair representation walk when almost certainly guilty, and poor who have no such defense go to their death in a number of cases innocent. The fact that the death penalty unfairly selects against the poor and members of ethnic and religious minorities is a well established fact. That alone should be sufficient reason to end the practice.

You say it saves money, but in fact this is a common misconception. Because of the nature of capital trials the legal process alone costs the tax payers millions of dollars, add to that 20 years of appeals and post trial legal process and the average capital crime costs the tax payers dozens of times more than a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Even more important, if the wrong man is convicted you can make things right, something that is impossible to do if you take his life. Recently a man was executed in Texas, convicted of an arson fire resulting in the deaths of his two daughters. In fact upon reinvestigation by new technology which has been overturning long held beliefs regarding arson, this man was almost certainly innocent and railroaded to the death house by a prosecutorial body that is known to execute first and ask questions later.

Our society has become increasingly vindictive and blood thirsty. Strangely enough this is especially marked in the Bible Belt, where one would think "Turn the other cheek" would be the order of the day when in fact "Kill them all and let God sort them out":seems to be a closer call. This ease with which we take revenge on people seems to be a trend growing from the lynchings and vigilante killings of the last century. These act were particularly noted for their violence, brutality and lack of any sane justification. Innocent men were murdered as quickly as guilty and a certain blood lust was evident in all these proceedings.

It is time for our society to rise above the criminals whom we prosecute. As long as we indulge in legally sanctioned murder we cannot hope to achieve this end. If you want to find out just how broken the death penalty is, please feel free to read the huge amount of information available at Amnesty International and The Innocence Project. Where people take the lives of others whatever their crime, there can be no civil society.

Re:Probably

[dgatwood]

Is there a way to achieve those goals of the appeals during the initial investigation of the murder?

No, there really isn't. You have to start under the assumption that a not-insignificant percentage of the people arrested and jailed were railroaded by a jury because of racism or other factors. Therefore, you have to have neutral parties (read "from a different geographical area") to provide the necessary checks and balances.

By definition, the fallibility, corruption, sloppiness, and/or bias of the people doing the initial investigation is precisely why you have to have independent review, which means that nothing they can do can possibly take the place of that independent review.

Having independent labs vet the evidence is certainly a good idea, but it's not just the evidence. It is reevaluating the credibility of witnesses (including the ones the prosecutors used to vet the evidence), evaluating new evidence that was not available at the time of the original trial, etc.

Re:Probably

[toQDuj]

looked it up. gun owners are twice as likely to be murdered and 5 times likely to get shot. Perhaps time to protect gun owners from themselves? Source: papers linked to in this comment:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3009849&cid=40793137

Re:Probably

[sodul]

Like in that little camp setup in Cuba? Limited time at geological scale? Due process?

Re:Probably

[shutdown -p now]

So far as I can see, what the study actually says that you're 5 times more likely to get shot if you try to use a gun to defend yourself against someone else with a gun. Which is kind of a "well, duh" thing. Technically I suppose it would be more concisely stated as "you're more likely to get shot if you resist an armed criminal", it's just that people with guns are more likely to try than people with, say, a knife, or with only their bare hands.

Re:Probably

[shentino]

The worst part of prison rape is that it happens period. The fact that the perpetrators are getting free sex is just a side problem.

Notice my qualifier that I state that I do not think the victims deserve it anyhow.

Re:Probably

[crankyspice]

Which makes me wonder why the order was issued to her instead of Facebook.

Might have something to do with the fact that Facebook isn't a party to the litigation and thus can't be ordered (outside of, perhaps, the very specific circumstance of an order to enforce a subpoena, but given the ECPA/SCA, good luck with even that) by that judge to do anything...

Re:Probably

[rtb61]

The argument against corporal punishment is it instils in society the benefit of an immediate assault for every affront. Gees, why bother with expensive courts, allow families to resolve the matter themselves, there's nothing like a good old hill billy feud to 'er' resolve things.

So law and justice are expensive because there no simple knee jerk reactions that actual provide any thing of value. Justice must be seen by the public to be observed (we don't trust government on this, they must publicly prove it), costly rehabilitation is required to reduce the likely hood of repetition (because it is still cheaper then repetition) and, you don't make examples of people because unjustly you are punishing them for crimes other people might commit (now that is really is crazy thinking).

The law is the agreed and accepted bureaucratic definition of peoples shared morals and needs to be equally applied to ensure relevance. It is expensive and requires many peoples efforts to achieve, doing it on the cheap, just results in corruption and eventual break down of law and order.

Re:Probably

[symbolset]

In places where they have no guns like Japan, we have stories like THIS where the crazy man kills 8 children and wounds 13 more with kitchen cutlery. Should we ban kitchen knives too?

Re:Probably

[TranquilVoid]

The undo burden is having to contact Facebook and ask them to reactivate your account.

Re:Probably

[TranquilVoid]

Switzerland is slightly different because people own guns to protect themselves from foreign invaders, not from their fellow citizens.

But this still supports the idea that it's not guns per se, but culture. That's right, guns are fine, but you all suck.

Seriously though, it could be an argument that until U.S. society is stable enough to handle guns* they should not be so prolific.

* I don't mean this in a belittling way, all societies have their problem areas.

Re:Probably

[Genda]

The very problem you pose is that this person commits such a heinous act that you want to return the act in kind, letting him lower you to the same level. I realize its a profound human desire to sweep the earth clean of such a walking atrocity, but you must work to maintain your own soul, and dignity when facing such evil. So you do a far site more than simply house this animal for the next 50 years. You can make him work to make restitution. You can show him to your children and your children's children. This is what a monster looks like. He put his beliefs above the lives and futures of 77 good and decent people. This is what we do with monsters. We put them in tiny holes and night and we work them like dogs during the day, and squeeze a little good out this horrible pile of reeking bad. We come up with new and exciting ways to use this scum. Perhaps in 20 years he finds God and has a change or heart, or not. We give him every opportunity to transform and we use that as a lesson too. How we take the worst human toxic waste and in the end mine it for some human dignity. This is about the possibility of healing, and that always begins with an act of forgiving, not to let the monster off the hook, but to let yourself off the hook.

Re:Probably

[Genda]

Actually the trials themselves are so much more expensive that they alone would make the the simple life without parole a profoundly less expensive proposition. Murder trial cost millions of dollars. The trials are by design harder to prosecute, therefore huge resources are brought to bear to ensure a desired outcome, and that makes these trial huge ticket items that has been so expensive that a number of states are looking to end the death penalty as a simple cost cutting measure.

Re:Probably

[Genda]

In western culture we have this strange idea of what it means to forgive. So forgiving doesn't mean agreeing with, condoning, or promoting what another has done in any way. It does mean giving up the right to hold resentment or to punish. Forgiving is something a person does or a society can do. In the case of those who commit great atrocities it is perfectly reasonable for individuals to forgive, while society demands some form of retribution. Did you see dead man walking. The Susan Sarandon character was a perfect example of personal forgiveness. You do not forgive to release the guilty, you forgive to liberate the innocent.

Let me put this another way. Do you think for a moment this guilty person cares a wit what you think or how you feel. So you can choose to bear the burden of toxic emotions, or you can choose to divest yourself of hatred (even where deserved) so that your soul is liberated from darkness. A wise man once said vengeance is poison you swallow hoping the other person will die.

Re:Probably

[eugene ts wong]

The thing is that if neutral parties can be brought in after, then why not during the trial as well?

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

Shooting a motherfucker that's in your house coming at you and your kids with a samurai sword is not a crime.

What if it's just someone in your house running at you but you're not sure if he has a samurai sword? What if he's not really running at you, but just walking faster than you're comfortable with? What if he's not really walking toward you, but he's in your house and you don't know why and now you're feeling twitchy?

You're attempting to pre-quantify all possible scenarios. That works in computers... well, not really; a lot of input validation is "X Y ad Z are valid; all else is strange and scary." The world isn't so black and white.

When you take a martial art, they teach you about fighting. They teach you that reacting too late is often fatal. Your first clue that someone is trying to harm you isn't open hostility, a weapon in hand, or a charge; it's the way they look at you, the way they move, the way they stand. Their body language is your first clue. Someone who makes you feel threatened in any way is a potential threat; you should at that point be ready for an attack. Whether that's simply more attention, a hand on your knife or gun, or anything else is up to your assessment of the threat at that time.

Normally, every person that looks at you shouldn't threaten you, otherwise you're paranoid as a motherfucker. Maybe a little creepy, sure, but not really dangerous. However there comes a point where you must decide if an advance is benign or hostile, and what level of threat it presents. These decisions have to be made QUICKLY; false positives can lead to excessive force in self-defense, false negatives lead to NOT defending yourself and getting hurt or killed. Both, unfortunately, happen quite a bit.

The real question is: what better way do you propose? The police can't escort every single citizen around everywhere to make sure they play nice. People need to defend themselves. I can kill a man with a drinking straw or a pencil, though I'm much more effective with my bare hands or a knife. That's not really great when a firearm is involved at range; in closed quarters, I'll take my bare hands against a guy with a gun. At range? Arms are too short to box with God.

How do we deal with the criminal element who manages access to guns illegally? How do we propose self-defense is to be metered? When is it proposed that a person may reasonably react violently to a perceived threat?

It's all well and good for you to be a gun apologist, but don't be intellectually dishonest in the process.

What's with this "apologist" thing lately? It's like people wanted to find a word that says, "Well, this stuff is wrong and evil and bad, and you're saying sorry for it being wrong and evil and bad and for people doing it." Loaded wording.

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

England actually is an empire made by invading and usurping a number of countries. Canada is fucking huge and split into provinces.

I was always told Carrol ran on significantly less income. The $11k number is news to me.

My point was more that an argument of X vs Y, therefor X = Y is short-sighted. As you've pointed out, different communities, different performance. Also Texas is big--Texas and Congress have the standing option to break Texas into five separate states. California as well, southern California is a completely separate culture from northern California in much the same way France is not Germany. Pull up Maryland's numbers for Baltimore, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and Carrol County. Pull up New York's numbers for New York City, Boston, and Long Island (all the places I can name in New York State). Texas... Dallas and Austin, name some big cities and some more rural areas. The only city I can name in California is LA.

Guns aren't a solution, but I think disarming people is short-sighted and exemplifies poor judgment. That it's true that arming everyone doesn't solve all our problems, it's not automatically true that attempting to disarm everyone (or even doing so successfully) causes none. When I was in middle school, they told us that if somebody attacks you, you should duck down on the ground and cover your head until they stop; this to my senses is less optimal than teaching everyone boxing, and when some asstard whoops some kid he's got a few missing teeth or a busted arm for the fight he just "won". There's little to no physical, bodily risk for going around beating people and stealing their stuff.

Your actions have to have consequences. Consequences must be inherent: the police are not inherent consequences, they're not around and nobody sees what happened and they have to figure out who you are and then they have to find you. Nobody commits a crime because they can't get away with it. It is, thus assumed, impossible to make people "play nice" out of the goodness of their heart or little ponies. Effectively, we must present a threat, and then we must propose a better way which avoids said threat. The threat has to be effective.

Re:Probably

[Rich0]

The problem with this is that we make the defendant bear a significant part of the costs despite the presumption of innocence. We effectively punish people simply by making them go through the process. That's a broken process.

Then we have all the issues with the adversarial system where prosecutors have the goal of obtaining convictions, not the truth.

Re:Probably

[DaveV1.0]

It is not a fallacy of accident. A fallacy of accident has the form:

1.Cutting people with knives is a crime.
2.Surgeons cut people with knives.
3.Surgeons are criminals.

Please demostrate how this fits into that form.

Someone who has committed a crime before is highly likely to commit a crime in the future. In humans, previous behavior is a good indicator of future behavior. First, one doen't need a facebook account to get a job or otherwise function in society. Second, punishment was included because of a specific act by the defendant that almost no other drunk driver has done, making light about her crime on facebook. And, you don't tie your example in your second paragraph to your argument in the third.

Seriously, if you are going to try and argue logically, you should learn a little bit about logic.

Re:Probably

[DaveV1.0]

Actually, if you are contempt of court, the judge CAN order you to white wash your own wall covered with graffiti you wrote. And, if you refuse to do so, the judge can put you in jail until you agree to do so, and put you back in jail if you fail to do so.

Re:Probably

[FitForTheSun]

It's expensive because before we execute someone, we want to be super duper DUPER sure they are guilty. In our society we call it "substantive justice". Obviously we could kill a criminal for the cost of one bullet, but to be sure they are guilty, we have a hell of a lot of smartass lawyers fight about it for a long, long time. If, after that long time, the case still seems tight enough, then we kill the criminal, but by then it costs more than to just keep him in jail.

Re:Probably

[FitForTheSun]

Yep. Killing is the inexpensive part. The cost comes from the justice system. Alas, we don't want to just kill anyone, we want to be totally sure they are guilty first. We feel this way because of the number of convictions that get overturned on appeal.

It makes us feel good to kill very bad people, but it would make us feel bad to kill an innocent person. To avoid feeling so bad, we spend all that money to be sure.

Re:Probably

[AwesomeMcgee]

Like I said, "unless that expression of free speech violates other laws", in each of your example a law was being broken:

If you're protesting on private property, you can be kicked off.

If ordered to leave and you do not, you are trespassing, illegal.

If you're on a private radio station and the owner doesn't like what you're saying, that person can remove you.

See above, trespassing, illegal.

if you had previously signed an HOA covenant in your deed that precludes walls other than white

Breach of contract, illegal.

The right to free speech extends to all forums, but it does not override other laws. It's like the white space outside of the other laws, so long as you aren't breaking any laws, you have the right to free speech.

Re:Probably

[Lucky_Norseman]

The Bible talks about " Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. "

Re:Probably

[mcgrew]

I live close to the ghetto, and guess what? More white people live there than black people. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity and everything to do with income. There's a class war, and the rich want to make everyone think it's a race war, that the poor are all black and hispanic criminals. It just isn't so. White food stamp recipients outnumber black food stamp recipients three to one.

Re:Probably

[ChrisMP1]

"Homicide" = "killing a human", therefore "justifiable homicide" = "justifiably killing a human", which is exactly what happened. Homicide and murder are not synonymous.

Re:Probably

[hobarrera]

If that's the case, then you're putting people in jail without being sure enough they're guilty either.

Re:Probably

[rtb61]

Easy solution socialise the courts, your defence attorney is strictly luck of the draw. Just watch the quality of public defenders improve.

Re:Probably

[RobbieCrash]

Canada is huge, but our politics are a lot more nationalistic than the US. The concept of 'state' rights is not so important here, which I suppose is why Quebec wants to secede.

I'm not advocating disarming anyone but the criminal population that uses weapons as a method to silence critics and bend others to their will. I also agree that people should be more willing to fight back, and better prepared, to protect themselves against assault. I've never been one to back down from bullies, and won't be teaching my kids that they're better off not punching someone in the mouth when they're being bullied. That said, teaching everyone how to fight may not be the best answer either, as most of the people I know that know how to fight, myself included, are less willing to walk away when we probably should; I know that's anecdotal, but it's all I've got for this point.

Regarding guns as deterrents for robberies and assaults, statistics don't show that to be the case. Excluding DC because it's a crime infested shithole, with more economic disparity and poverty than the majority of the states, the amount of legally owned guns doesn't seem to have any significant bearing on crime statistics. Montana, West Virginia and Alaska all have rates of aggravated assault higher than most of the country. Alaska is the rape capital of the US, fourth in assaults, and consistently one of the best armed states in the union.

If we compare states, Texas and California for example, with similar median incomes (50/53K), populations (25M/37M), and education (average for both), but significantly different gun laws (TX, CA) and you'll see that the gun laws don't make a huge difference in crime. In fact, as of 2008, Texas was significantly more criminal than California is, Texas #10 on most criminal overall, and California #27. Other years put them within one or two of each other, in varying orders, but comparable.

What I also found shocking, was that Texas is one of the lesser armed states in the union.

What it comes down to, is for self defence, there doesn't seem to be that much of an impact.

Do law abiding people need to have the right to keep and bear arms? Unquestionably, and well they should. But it shouldn't be thought of as a deterrent for common crime. Guns should be kept to keep the government in line.

Re:Probably

[GregLaden]

Killing people to save money is not civilized. It is barbaric. That you personally would like to receive the death penalty instead of some other sentence is neither relevant nor interesting. And no, to the commenter above, courts can not arbitrarily order an execution in the US or most places.

Re:Probably

[LocalH]

She didn't commit a crime in connection with Facebook. She committed a crime, then talked about it afterwards on FB. This is akin to someone committing a crime, telling a lot of people about it on the phone, and the judge banning her from ever using the phone again. Somehow I don't think that'd fly for too long.

Re:Probably

[AnonyMouseCowWard]

I'd argue that's false.

Most rapists are not murderers. There might be overlap, but I'd say they're not thinking of killing someone when they're committing rape, there's a big gap in intention. Also, most rapes are not reported, whereas a person missing is more likely to attract attention, so they have a higher chance of getting caught if they murder a person.

On the other hand, I'd be okay with "eye for an eye". You rape someone, and your punishment is being raped (we can use a mechanical object) in public.

Re:Probably

[LocalH]

So it's better to have the possibility of executing innocents, than to make it such that the state can deny plea bargains in such cases, and still go after LWOP without any other possibility?

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

Canada is huge, but our politics are a lot more nationalistic than the US. The concept of 'state' rights is not so important here, which I suppose is why Quebec wants to secede.

My point is cultural, not political. Like Russia, which is an insane nation-state that needs to die, but under which the Russian people have a strong and proud culture that is done a great disservice by its government. The Russians don't give a shit about Russia; they don't like how Russia operates, some of them outright flee Russia, but they sure as hell don't surrender their culture to their corrupt government. To the Russians, Russia is not about the state of Russia; it is about the people.

It is the same everywhere, although we're more nationalist in many places. We talk about USA or Canada or UK, but the truth is our neighbors are different than our fellow countrymen hundreds of miles away. This is as much true of Canada as the US, and even of US states.

As for the right and reason for the people to keep and bear arms, I say it is a deterrent. I say this because a strong people is better off than a weak people. People who cannot defend themselves are wholly concerned with their own safety; they are too weak to make a difference, they are too weak to help others, they can barely help themselves, and they feel no such social responsibility. I feel there is value in arming oneself with knives, swords, sticks, nunchaku, or well-trained hand-to-hand combat; a firearm is not a magical god machine, although at appreciable range it's got better reach than a spear (even if you can throw the spear, the gun can aim and fire more quickly).

I also feel there is little sense in disarming people of firearms in particular, at least in part because of the perceived and actual advantages and disadvantages of a gun. You CAN bring a knife to a gun fight and be at an advantage over bringing a gun, but that's a special situation--closed quarters when the gun isn't drawn at you yet, which by the way if the gun is drawn you're best off not reaching for your gun in response because you get shot. If it comes down to a guy attacking me in an alley or in my home and he reaches for a gun, when we're grappling and he's grabbing at the hand I've got a knife in he's going to get stabbed in the hand; I'm much better off here, as long as that barrel's pointed somewhere else. In any other situation, either no weapon is any use (gun pointed at your face? Try not to do anything stupid), or perhaps having a firearm of your own would be REALLY useful right about now.

Nevertheless, I feel that a requirement of carrying a weapon should be existing and continuing training--maybe not for knives and polearms (like the Jo), but for flails (nunchaku included) and swords and firearms you absolutely must be trained, because these weapons are very hard to control (bullets and flails go off in random directions, swords are huge blades with long reach).

That all said, a people who are strong--who may face a fight, but who are not entirely helpless, who have something to pit against their attacker--are easier to work with. When you tell people we must stand together, we must stand proud, we must protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors, you have something there to work with. These people are no longer convinced that anyone who raises a fist is terrifying and insurmountable; they believe in their own strength. We say that with power comes responsibility--the truth is that power can convince us of responsibility. Strength before weakness: we are all weak at times, and so we must be strong and use our strength for the good of others; power does not make one fit to rule, but rather fit to serve. When those of us who are strong help those who are weak, we will ourselves not have to worry as much about the times we are weak, for someone may come to our own aid.

Such thinking is completely alien to a people who are at all times incapable of protecting themselves. Just like how the poor

Re:Probably

[man_of_mr_e]

If a judge can order Kevin Mitnick to never touch a computer for a given period of time, a judge can order you to delete your facebook page.

Re:Probably

[FitForTheSun]

Yeah. Putting people in jail is expensive too! (And keeping them there is a separate high cost!) The greater the punishment, the more we spend to assure justice. That's why you can get nicked for an undeserved traffic ticket but a judge will hardly hear you out, while if you get arrested you get more attention, if you're up for life you get more attention, and if you're up for death then you get the most of all. That makes sense to you, right? It makes perfect sense to me.

It turns out that justice is pricey.

Re:Probably

[sumdumass]

Almost certainly does not mean will. He could become some born again pillar of model citizenry and be released after 10 years.

He got 10-20 years and nothing more. What might happen in the future is meaningless because he was sentenced to a max of 20 years for the crimes already commited.

Re:Probably

[swiftdr]

The death penalty has zero recidivism unless they come back... ...AS A ZOMBIE!

Re:Probably

[niftymitch]

......

......Crime correlates well with the overall poverty of the country, but also with wealth and income disparity. The reason why US has a relatively high crime rate in developed world is not because of guns, but rather because it has unusually high concentration of wealth, very low social mobility, and consequently many poor, disenfranchised people who don't have many prospects in life. This kind of thing breeds crime. Compare that to a well-functioning social democracy like Switzerland, and suddenly guns are a non-factor.

Also blame it on the Kardashians and the "Real Housewives of ______________"

Poverty is less an issue than "The Green Eyed Monster" ..... Jealousy.

Jealousy, Greed and Envy combine to fuel much crime.
Sitting home and watching TV where fools and idiots get to
drink fine wine, eat what they will and have no visible means of
support establish unreasonable expectations and are a blight
on society almost as evil as the war on drugs.

Most crime and poverty would vanish if honest expectations
existed in the masses. This election in the US watch
for those that pander to dishonest expectations.

Stuff like Health Care is expensive (it is), but not as expensive as
tort law that punishes the medical industry and does not
improve health care one bit. Current tort law lines the pockets
of legal vultures that prey on the heart strings of those that
suffer.

Re:Probably

[Holladon]

You're attempting to pre-quantify all possible scenarios. That works in computers... well, not really; a lot of input validation is "X Y ad Z are valid; all else is strange and scary." The world isn't so black and white.

I'm an attorney. My job frequently involves trying to figure out what the hell the law is when legislators don't do their damn job of making it clear. It's not about whether or where trying to imagine every permutation "works"; it's about asking questions to determine if the law is sufficiently clear or not, and trying to find clarifying case law when the statute and legislative history aren't clear. As you say, the world is not black and white, which is why it's very important that the law do as much as it can to warn people about what will or won't be considered legal *in advance* of their deciding to do it. Regardless, this entire tangent is a complete departure from the broader point I was making.

The real question is: what better way do you propose? The police can't escort every single citizen around everywhere to make sure they play nice. People need to defend themselves. I can kill a man with a drinking straw or a pencil, though I'm much more effective with my bare hands or a knife. That's not really great when a firearm is involved at range; in closed quarters, I'll take my bare hands against a guy with a gun. At range? Arms are too short to box with God.

Again, actually, no, that's not the real question. My point was that you were confusing legality with ethicality, and you're doing it again right here. I'm not arguing with you about what the law ought to be; I'm pointing out to you that what the law IS and what it OUGHT to be are not always the same thing, and therefore if you're going to use language referring to legality, your analysis needs to adhere consistently to that decision. When you go off the rails, as you do here, into questions of justification, you're getting into policy arguments. Even if some jurisdictions make distinctions more or less along the lines you do (I've no doubt some do), that doesn't change the fact that using the word "criminals" in reference to gun owners is not particularly useful when you haven't defined what you mean by "criminals." Some people are only "criminals" in some jurisdictions where they wouldn't be in others. Do you understand the distinction I'm making here? Your self-defending gun owner is, in some jurisdictions, every bit as much of a "criminal" as a home invader. That's why it's not useful to rely on "crime" statistics when making arguments about the efficacy of gun laws, given that some gun laws technically create more criminals. The better question is whether gun laws increase or reduce VIOLENCE, whether or not that violence has legal sanction.

What's with this "apologist" thing lately? It's like people wanted to find a word that says, "Well, this stuff is wrong and evil and bad, and you're saying sorry for it being wrong and evil and bad and for people doing it." Loaded wording.

Just because you dislike or don't understand something doesn't render it "loaded." I'm tempted to give you a lmgtfy link but I'll play it classier here.

Re:Probably

[Jane Q. Public]

"what, exactly, is the difference between a plea bargain, and a guilty plea to lesser charges?"

Zero. There is no difference.

"I *am* against the abuses of plea deals that happen all too often, but before you say 'ban them' propose a better alternative that doesnt cause more issues then it solves."

I don't agree that it causes more problems than it solves. If you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or think you do, enough to involve a jury) then bring the charge. If you don't, then don't. If you think you have evidence of a lesser crime, then bring THAT charge.

There isn't any problem here. It's very, very simple. Accuse somebody of a crime, prove it before a jury. No issues, man.

Re:Probably

[Meski]

They can order you to delete it, but can they enforce it?

Re:Probably

[Meski]

How is this remotely associated with facebook deletion?

Re:Probably

[Cajun Hell]

That is not a property the death penalty. The jury didn't really write, "We sentence you and the state to endure a lengthy and expensive legal process, followed by possible death." Someone else tacked on most of that.

That is a property of independent laws, and maybe those laws are for the best, but they could just as easily be repealed, or more broadly applied to other forms of punishment.

If you were sentenced to life in prison, why should you be denied lawyers and appeals?

You may have some excellent arguments against death penalty (I can think of some great ones) but this isn't one. The high expenses involved with this form of punishment are merely an indictment of the legal system (or perhaps praise for our extravagant wealth which allows us that luxury), not the chosen punishment itself.

Even Stalin could do it cheaply, and he was one of those damned inefficient communists! ;-)

Re:Probably

[sumdumass]

The very problem you pose is that this person commits such a heinous act that you want to return the act in kind, letting him lower you to the same level.

Well, no and I don't care. You see to think that I think killing is bad or something. I do not. Killing outside of punishment imposed by the state or the preservation of your or someone's life is bad but within that, it is actually righteous enough that it will never snake to his level.

The rest of your drivel is an insult to the families who's members and friends life were taken. You can't work someone like a dog if they have a life prison sentence. If they refuse to do the work, what are you going to do, put them in jail jail? Are you going to then take their life? If you release him, it just says to the world that anyone can kill 70 people and be out after a few years- possible better off then when they went in with an education and all. A really smart move.

If you ask me, people like you and societies that thinks like you are the reason there is so much evil in the world.

Re:Probably

[ewibble]

He could also escape to tomorrow as well, nothing is certain you have to go by what is most likely.

He got until he is "considered" safe to release, it is not the same sentence he will be released. If tomorrow they discover some "cure" then he is just as safe to release as any other person then why not. I am not for vengeance in the legal system what purpose does it serve? The best thing to do is realise that he is a pathetic little man that did a horrible thing and move on. Protect the public is important and that is exactly what the ruling is doing. Also as a deterrent well, I don't think there would be much you could do to deter him, it was likely the could have died, doing this. He believed what he was doing was the right thing to do.

As long as you don't consider the people assessing idiots, (which I think you do). He probably (baring some scientific discovery) will never be considered safe to release, so will never be released. That's what the experts said in the article and unless you have good knowledge of the Norwegian justice system, I will just have trust the articles experts not you.

The headline is just to get people to read the story and is intentionally deceptive.

Re:Probably

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm an attorney. My job frequently involves trying to figure out what the hell the law is when legislators don't do their damn job of making it clear.

And that's not the point at all. The discussion is about the use and value of firearms [and other weapons] as self defense, and the advantages and disadvantages of an armed society. The law exists because we determine what's good (we think) and codify it. We wouldn't put a law on the books that says "Murder ugly girls" because that ... would be bad.

These arguments are more important than the law. They're also highly theoretical. Fortunately laws exist for a reason and some assumptions can be made--for example, we're talking about tools of death, and the law makes unjiustifiable homicide illegal. The law makes some provisions for self-defense, because we'd rather have an attempted murder end with the attempted murderer dead than with some single mother dead by murder-rape and so if she stabs him in the throat that's maybe less ideal but we don't really care all that much.

Inside all that, you have to decide if you're going to let people have guns, and who you're going to let have guns--actually the same thing, because 'who' could be 'nobody' (which covers 'if'). To do that, you have to decide who is the dangerous element, and how to reduce their access or how to make them less dangerous. Obviously, criminals are a dangerous element; non-criminals are dangerous due to lack of skill, and so training makes them less dangerous. Gun registration increases accountability.

At a point the argument tends to come down to allowing nobody access to guns or allowing "law-abiding citizens" access to guns. So now all we're down to is weeding out the "criminals" from the "non-criminals," which classically we've done by assuming that mostly anyone without a history of psychological problems or violent crime is a 'law-abiding citizen'. If you want to look at cost-benefit, you need to make some tricky adjustments: 'law-abiding citizens' aren't the people we gave guns, but rather the people who remain 'law-abiding'. That means if we arm 1000 'law-abiding citizens' and 10 of them commit crimes with guns, what we did was arm 990 'law-abiding citizens' and mistakenly arm 10 'criminals'.

So, given that, the legislature meets to decide on gun laws. Their question is: do the 990 armed law-abiding citizens improve the situation enough to offset the problem caused by the 10 now-armed 'criminals'? Another good question is: would the 10 'criminals' have had the drive and opportunity to obtain firearms in the first place? We know criminals can; the question is both how many, and of course motivation. Face it: sometimes a bad man won't go and get himself a gun, but if you make it legal and easy to get a gun he WILL go and get himself a gun and then do bad things with it.

These discussions aren't for the benefit of lawyers. The arguments over guns are centered around what the law SHOULD be. That's not the lawyer's job; it's not the judge's job; it's the jury's and the legislature's job to decide what the law SHOULD be.

Just because you dislike or don't understand something doesn't render it "loaded." I'm tempted to give you a lmgtfy link but I'll play it classier here.

So according to that definition, if a thing is well and good and you write a defensive statement explaining why it's well and good, you're an apologist? Like, if I wrote a piece about why laws that say premeditated murder is illegal are good and important, I'm a murder legislation apologist?

Re:Probably

[busybox]

2) Animals that kill people are put down, people are just animals.

In the second part of the sentence you say people are animals. If it is applied to the first part, I should ask:

"are animals that kill animals put down?"
or
"are people that kill animals put down?"

People are animals, but special animals. In some cases we could equate them (eg. biology/physiology). Not in psychology or intent.

Re:Probably

[metrix007]

It isn't racist if it's backed up by data. The question is, is it?

Why is she apologizing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never apologize to these scum. There are penalties in place, already on the books, to cover DUI charges. Sentence this woman to her time or fines and let it go at that. Trying to micromanage people's lives is what the system now does, judges and the whole corrupt group of them on a sociopathic power trip.
 
Never bow to these megalomaniacs.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[macbeth66]

It was a condition of her release. If she did not wish to comply with the conditions, her jail time would have been higher and/or she would have had greater fines.

If the judge offers something like this up, you take it. It beats spending more time in jail. But you had better follow through. At this level of the court system, the judges are your neighbors. They want the same things you do, a safe community. They are not ivory tower federal judges.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Beavertank]

Yes, of course. Except the few exceptions to the rule (judges who are actually on a power trip) prove nothing... except that in any group of people who achieve power some of them will misuse it. Have fun with that paranoid lifestyle, though. The tin-foil hats are in aisle 5.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[tnk1]

Or, alternately, don't commit a DUI at all, and definitely don't then go on to Facebook and go “My dumb bass got a DUI and I hit a car ... LOL”.

But sure, you show those little Napoleons who is boss. All they can do is throw you in jail for... well... forever because you can be jailed indefinitely for contempt of court. I imagine we will be more than happy to throw ourselves on our swords for the sanctity of Facebook access.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Penguinisto]

I can't disagree with the logic, but something still stinks about how deeply into one's personal life and activities a judge can go.

Hypothetical extreme example: If you met a girl at a bar, went to bed with her, only to discover later (via arrest) that she was jailbait, and a judge demanded that you get a castration in order to avoid 10-15 years in prison, would you do it? Many (I daresay most) would, while others would not.

Thing is, it's not that it gets you out of jail faster - it's that the punishment itself is unusual, which is constitutionally out-of-bounds. In other words, the judge had no constitutional right or authority to order (let alone enforce) such a thing as punishment.

One other bit: I submit that local judges, far more than state/federal ones, are more prone to viciousness, petty abuses, and vindictiveness - especially in more rural areas, where there is no competition and/or chance of losing one's job to a misconduct charge. If there's going to be judicial abuse, odds are good that it'll happen on the lower levels far easier than the upper ones.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[PickyH3D]

I realize that this is Slashdot, and no one reads the original article, but this woman was mocking the fact that she got a DUI on Facebook, which is what caught the attention of the judge in the first place.

She was laughing it off as a status update, after hitting another car with, I believe (I read this somewhere else), 4 people in it.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree that the judge was looking for a power grab, but in this case, I think that the judge was trying to make a point to a person that simply did not understand the ramifications of the situation.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Anonymous Coward]

She hasn't actually been convicted yet from the sounds of things. So it is not something she "agreed to" as a condition of release. It apparently was imposed by the judge because he didn't like the content she had posted. Ordering her not to use Facebook for any purpose based on the content of one post has clear first amendment problems.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, alternately, get up off of your knees and stand rather than kneeling like a slave. It's not about Facebook access, it's about the basic right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. If someone is stupid enough to be publicly unremorseful for a crime they committed, then give them a stiffer penalty. You know, one of the penalties already on the books.
 
But telling someone they effectively can't have a social media presence is an unusual punishment for a crime that had nothing to do with the social media presence in the first place. If you mass-texted your friends and said "LOLL got a DUI hurr" should you have access to mobile phones "revoked"? I think not.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[AwesomeMcgee]

Which is why appeals are an escalation process, up to the levels to more regulated/standardized courts. I think what you submit at the bottom is a known, expected part of the process with a cure baked in. Unfortunately the system is altogether too expensive for most people to take advantage of in any fashion anyway, otherwise it would be a decent system.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[AwesomeMcgee]

A judicial system based on judges making points in disregard of it's legal authority and the rights of the parties involved is a slippery slope. Some of the points may be well intended and effective in teaching the defendant a lesson, but that doesn't change the fact that the practice in and of itself is the definition of a slippery slope.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[jader3rd]

and a judge demanded that you get a castration in order to avoid 10-15 years in prison

Castration would go under 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Any sort of punishment a judge would order would have to not violate the cruel and unusual clause.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[DragonWriter]

I can't disagree with the logic, but something still stinks about how deeply into one's personal life and activities a judge can go.

There are avenues for addressing overreaching judicial orders. Agreeing without qualification to an offered alternative and then ignoring the requirements you agreed to generally isn't the best avenue. Indeed, its usually the one that leaves you in the worst position.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Tastecicles]

no, you can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt. The one-off sentence varies from two to ten years, you could be out in a week, but to claim indefinite sentences is misleading and afoul of the Eight Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 99 of the Geneva Convention, UN1957 Rule 31, and the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975). To name but a few naughties. On a more basic level, it also falls afoul of the Double Jeopardy rule - you can't be tried twice for the same offence (unless, according to a rule amendment in the Criminal Justice Act (UK), evidence comes to light that did exist but was unavailable previously, or the case is one of terrorism or major fraud. Yeah, WHAT!?).

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[samkass]

I realize that this is Slashdot, and no one reads the original article, but this woman was mocking the fact that she got a DUI on Facebook, which is what caught the attention of the judge in the first place.

She was laughing it off as a status update, after hitting another car with, I believe (I read this somewhere else), 4 people in it.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree that the judge was looking for a power grab, but in this case, I think that the judge was trying to make a point to a person that simply did not understand the ramifications of the situation.

Some people are jerks. We still have a first amendment, and it still protects them.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Guppy06]

Hypothetical extreme example: If you met a girl at a bar, went to bed with her, only to discover later (via arrest) that she was jailbait, and a judge demanded that you get a castration in order to avoid 10-15 years in prison, would you do it? Many (I daresay most) would, while others would not.

Apples and oranges. You're discussing sentencing options after conviction/plea deal. TFA is about a bail hearing.

The judge in question wanted the offending Facebook post removed as an indication that the defendant was "taking it seriously" and would, in fact, show up for her trial; it was a bail condition, not a sentence.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[smooth wombat]

no, you can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt.

Yes, you can in civil cases. See Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002). So long as you continue to violate the conditions of your contempt charge, you can be held. No Eighth Amendment issue.

As to the U.N. stuff, forget about it. Holding someone indefinitely for not following a court order is not cruel or unusual, tortuous, degrading or anything remotely similar while Article 99 only refers to prisoners during war times.

So yes, you an be held in court, indefinitely, if you choose to ignore a court order.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[jellomizer]

However REAL LIFE, you need to need to determine if such a punishment is out of bounds.
Face it, this girl messed up the lives of other people, There has been a legal prescience of giving jail time. Deleting a Facebook account is considered a much better sentence then jail. Vs. your Castration Example where you offer the person a Hard Long Punishment, vs. a Less hard but for the rest of your life punishment.

She got a good bargain, then decided to toss it out the window, so she will get jail time.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Lithdren]

Still doesn't make what the judge did right.

If anything, he should have thrown her in jail for the maximum term after showing her complete lack of empathy for the people she hit.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[dzfoo]

How the hell do you get a DUI in Facebook?

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[fm6]

Completely right. The dumb thing here is that the story summary reports this "overreach" without mentioning the facts you mention, or even the (severe, dangerous) crime the lady pled guilty to.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[JeffAtl]

no, you can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt.

Sure you can. The problem is that a person jailed for contempt is considered to "hold the keys to his own cell", so higher courts don't see it as actual imprisonment but a type of voluntary confinement. Yeah, it's crazy but it's the real world.

That's how those accused of not paying child support end up in de facto debtor's prisons.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Zalbik]

Yeah. Castrating someone is very similar to instructing them to delete a facebook account.

Quite the strawman you've set up there.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[shentino]

You should be innocent of rape because of a lack of mens rea. If you did not know the girl was a minor and had no reason to suspect it, you had no intention to violate a minor, and that is the lack of mens rea because it is NOT illegal or immoral in the eyes of the to have consensual sex with an adult.

Additionally, what the fuck is jailbait doing at a bar in the first place? Most dram shops require you to be *at least* 21 to even BE in the bar in the first place, going both towards a reasonable presumption of adulthood AND also nailing the girl herself for being a minor in possession for being in an age restricted area.

Also, I disagree that local judges are more prone to abuse. Federal judges are political appointees and do NOT answer to voters.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[shentino]

Castration as a punishment for a sex offense may well be fitting enough to not be considered cruel and unusual.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[shentino]

And the judge is a technophobe moron if he thinks that people can actually delete their own facebook accounts even if they try.

Facebook doesn't let you delete yourself period.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[shiftless]

I imagine we will be more than happy to throw ourselves on our swords for the sanctity of Facebook access.

Some of us would, if it came down to it. It's called having principle. In the end you either live by your principles, or you betray them. I guess we can see which side you fall on.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[shiftless]

She was laughing it off as a status update, after hitting another car with, I believe (I read this somewhere else), 4 people in it.

Is that against the law?

Under normal circumstances, I would agree that the judge was looking for a power grab, but in this case, I think that the judge was trying to make a point to a person that simply did not understand the ramifications of the situation.

No. The judge was simply flexing his muscles. This is what happens in a country ruled by men, not ones ruled by law.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[HiThere]

After watching a bankruptcy case proceeding (via Groklaw), I really doubt that local judges are more corrupt.

The only justice provided in that entire case was that SCO backers got stripped of their assets. But it wasn't done in any just way, and the indications are that they would have been stripped equally if they had been the injured party. (Of course, proving an invalid hypothetical is a real trick.)

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Penguinisto]

That's even worse, truth be told. Guilt or innocence hasn't even been established yet, and the judge is ordering the defendant to perform activities that may be detrimental to her (even if just perceived) well-being.

Way out of bounds there.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[chrismcb]

It was a condition of her release. If she did not wish to comply with the conditions, her jail time would have been higher and/or she would have had greater fines.

Its hard to tell from the article (it was apparently a "condition"), but apparently the only jail time she served was BECAUSE of the comment.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[chrismcb]

I think that the judge was trying to make a point to a person that simply did not understand the ramifications of the situation.

And what was the point the judge was trying to make? "You can't say whatever you want?"

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Rich0]

Yes, but the other avenues aren't much better. You can either voluntarily comply, or spend a fortune trying to get the order rescinded.

Legally speeding isn't a smart move either, but 99.9999% of the population does it anyway, because the laws are dumb. It won't get you out of a ticket, but only because the justice system isn't.

Re:Why is she apologizing?

[Guppy06]

Guilt or innocence hasn't even been established yet, and the judge is ordering the defendant to perform activities that may be detrimental to her (even if just perceived) well-being.

She had an alternative: cool her heels in jail. There's zero indication that her right to a speedy trial was at risk of being violated.

Way out of bounds there.

She is charged with jeopardizing life and limb (and fleeing the scene thereof). The people are entitled to act through the commonwealth to both ensure that she will be around to answer the serious charges as well as ensure that it doesn't happen again. Her flippant Facebook post strongly suggested that putting her back in jail was the only way to accomplish one or both of those goals.

Erased from existence

[Wowsers]

Never mind you being forced to delete an account, will Facebook wipe an account of their servers?

Re:Erased from existence

[ifrag]

Never mind you being forced to delete an account, will Facebook wipe an account of their servers?

I'd doubt it. Probably like a version control system, nothing is ever really gone or lost. On the outside you only see trunk / latest rev, it will look gone at least.

Re:Erased from existence

[Meski]

From the outside you can do a get whatever revision you want.

overreach

[Danathar]

It's like constitutionality and the supreme court. What the court says is constitutional IS constitutional, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

The same applies here (except for the fact that a higher court can say otherwise).

Re:overreach

[phlinn]

That's not actually true, although the legal system treats it as such. Constitutional means compatible with the US Constitution. Some things flatly aren't, even if the court says otherwise.

Re:overreach

[mooingyak]

That's not actually true, although the legal system treats it as such. Constitutional means compatible with the US Constitution. Some things flatly aren't, even if the court says otherwise.

You don't decide that, the Supreme Court does. Who says the Supreme Court decides that? The Constitution.

Well... not exactly. The Supreme Court says the Supreme Court decides that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Re:overreach

[LordLimecat]

If the constitution says "It is permissible to drink water under all circumstances", and the supreme court says "drinking water is unconstitutional", legally they are right, but factually they remain wrong.

Re:overreach

[FitForTheSun]

Let me rephrase that.

"I know what is Constitutional, and if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, then they are wrong. Whatever I think is right and everyone should agree with me."

Yeah, dude, we all feel that way. We could fight about it, or we could appoint some people to sit on a panel and decide which blowhard is right and which blowhard is wrong. And in fact we did appoint those people, and we call that panel "The Supreme Court".

If you want to, you can do the incredibly difficult work of learning and working hard to get yourself onto that panel. Or, on the other hand, you can be a blowhard on the internet.

Re:overreach

[spire3661]

The Supremes are NOT the end of the line. Congress and the Pres can overrule them, checks and balances and all that. I forget the exact mechanism, but SCOTUS decisions can be 'judged' by the other branches.

Re:overreach

[Bigby]

The only thing unconstitutional about Citizen's United is that all people, including a company acting on behalf of several people, should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. It shouldn't just be companies. And there should be pass-thru entities like SuperPACs. You should just be able to give money. And it should be taxable income (election committees are not charities) and the income for the committee should be taxed as income.

Campaign finance just furthers the two party system. It makes it nearly impossible for a grassroots effort to raise money. Plus, these stupid dinners like Romney's $50k a plate and Obama's $40k a plate with Beyonce/JayZ are just blatant ways around the current system.

You aren't going to limit a rich person's voice by limiting the candidates to rich person choices: like Romney and Obama.

Re:overreach

[JeffAtl]

But it has the force of law which is realistically all that matters.

Re:overreach

[camperdave]

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." . The courts are part of the judiciary branch of the government, and are not part of Congress as far as I know. Besides, there are no laws being made, just a sentence being passed. How does the first amendment apply?

Re:overreach

[Bob the Super Hamste]

They only way they can be judged is that that a constitutional amendment is passed. It is however possible for the congress to regulate the court according to Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution but then there is the Sheldon v. Sill case from 1850 that turned that sort of changed that. The power of judicial review is not a power that was granted the US Supreme court but was created by the court in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madisoncase. The US Supreme Court was (as well as the other federal courts) were setup to be the least powerful branch of government and the only check the supreme court originally had was as the court of final appeal.

Re:overreach

[shentino]

The constitution made SCOTUS the final judge of its own meaning, so things ARE constitutional if SCOTUS says so.

To be blunt, SCOTUS has the constitution's consent to make binding rulings on what is and is not constitutional.

See Marbury v. Madison for an example.

Re:overreach

[shiftless]

Yeah, dude, we all feel that way. We could fight about it, or we could appoint some people to sit on a panel and decide which blowhard is right and which blowhard is wrong. And in fact we did appoint those people, and we call that panel "The Supreme Court".

And if that panel consistently fails us, we can replace them. And if we fail to replace them, then we can really fight about it.

Re:overreach

[phlinn]

Arguably, Marbury v. Madison was itself unconstitutional. The constitution does not explicitly make SCOTUS the final judge of it's own meaning.

Re:overreach

[phlinn]

That is not what I said. Let me be clear: If the SCOTUS says that PI is equal to 3 when deciding some case, they remain wrong. They would also be wrong if they said the government could quarter troops in your house under some cirumstances. Constitutional is not synonymous with the opinion of the SCOTUS. The definition of the word has a distinct meaning, and the constitution doesn't grant them sole right to judge what is or is not constitutional. There's a reason legislators and the president also swear to uphold the constitution. Even if you accept the decision in Marbury vs Madison, that doesn't make them automatically correct in whatever they decide the constitution says in any given case.

Re:overreach

[Rich0]

Ultimately the end of the line is whoever points a gun at you. All that law and justice stuff is nice in theory, but in the end it all comes down to what people can get away with, whether it is those in power, or those who defy those in power. The legal system is an approximation of justice, but certainly an imperfect one. Just look at how well it handles scientific evidence and then tell me that they really have the final word on what is and isn't a fact.

Re:overreach

[shentino]

It does however make SCOTUS the top judicial authority. It is possible that jurisdiction over constitutional issues is implied.

Re:overreach

[FitForTheSun]

"Constitutional is not synonymous with the opinion of the SCOTUS."

That's what I'm saying. Yes, it is. You're using a different definition of "Constitutional" than the definition used in our society.

"the constitution doesn't grant them sole right to judge what is or is not constitutional"

True: it grants them the final prerogative to judge what is or is not Constitutional, which is really what counts.

"that doesn't make them automatically correct in whatever they decide"

Again, all that means is "I disagree with the Court, so everyone should take my opinion instead of theirs." That's fine, it just won't get you very far.

Re:overreach

[phlinn]

The SCOTUS has opinions. They are legally binding. Those opinions may nonetheless disagree with unambiguous wording in the constitution, making their decision factually unconstitutional. I'm not noting any particular decisions here, because I'm trying to prevent you from putting words in my mouth. I may have an opinion on specific decisions but it's irrelevant. I'm not trying to disprove your claim by counterexample. I'm basing my argument on actual definitions of words. I would argue society does not define constitutional the same way the legal system does. It's hardly the only word where common understanding is at odds with legal defintions. Are you sure I'm not using the primary defintion used in society?

Avoiding the SCOTUS in particular, the law says that possession of a sufficient amount of drugs is possession with intent to sell. That's not factually true even if it's legally true, because there is no provable link between amount possessed and intent. I'm trying to highlight the difference between legal rulings and existential fact. The use of the word "IS" with emphasis in the original post implies existential fact.

Above should be reworded for clarity, but I lack the time or inclination to edit further. If my point hasn't been made my now, there's some underlying disagreement that is probably unresolveable.

Stupid question ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, a court can order you to do anything -- and if it's upheld on appeal then you MUST comply.

Re:Stupid question ..

[scharkalvin]

But in this case the court's decision is probably in violation to the first amendment and would be over turned by a federal court (or the USSC). Her facebook comment is within her rights to free speech even if in poor taste.

Re:Stupid question ..

[esme]

the court can take away your life, proprty, freedom of movement & association, right to vote, etc. there is no reason speech related to the crime committed should be any different.

Re:Stupid question ..

[Volante3192]

With due process.

There was no due process here, at least none I saw. Just a judge going, "Take it down."

Re:Stupid question ..

[man_of_mr_e]

No it's not. The court isn't ordering you that you can't express yourself, just that you can't do it in conjunction with facebook.

Re:Stupid question ..

[jader3rd]

There was no due process here, at least none I saw. Just a judge going, "Take it down."

Having a judge involved, and the defense attorney not objecting, is due process.

Re:Stupid question ..

[Tastecicles]

in context: must is comparable to "can choose not to and eat the punishment".

In some circumstances, the punishment may be preferable.

Re:Stupid question ..

[Bigby]

There was due process. Maybe there wasn't a trial, but the defendant could have requested one.

A judge can send you to prison, stripping you of all your basic human rights. It is safe to say they can strip you of your right to free speech as long as you are under their sentence...a form of probation if you will.

What you are getting at is whether or not this is "cruel & unusual". You can appeal to determine that. The judge could say "jail for a year or stop using Facebook". And you can choose.

Re:Stupid question ..

[scharkalvin]

If a judge makes a decision that is later deemed contray to the law, or a higher law, then it can be reversed. In this case the first amendment might trump the judge's decision. However, the ruling will stand until it IS reversed. I wonder if that happened, would the court owe the defendant compensation for her illegal jail time?

Re:Stupid question ..

[JeffAtl]

Congress shall make no law.

Doesn't say judges shall make no order.

FFS I wish the people harping on about the 1st amendment at every opportunity would take the time to fucking read it.

The actual text no longer matters, because the Supreme Court and the 16th ammendment has further defined and expanded the meaning.

By a strict reading, state and local goverments are free to ignore the 1st ammendment, but Supreme Court decisions have incorporated the 16th ammendment to apply the 1st ammendment to all levels of government.

Re:Stupid question ..

[Volante3192]

Having a judge involved, and the defense attorney not objecting, is due process.

So, with that logic, if a judge orders you to pee on the floor and your attorney doesn't object, that's fine too?!

Re:Stupid question ..

[bar-agent]

Is it fine? No. Is it due process? Yes.

You must always be careful to separate the concepts of "legal" and "moral." They are not the same.

Re:Stupid question ..

[Volante3192]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the legal justification applied by the judge.

Let's try it this way, shall we?

A judge orders you to do X and your attorney doesn't object (assuming one is even present). This is legal.
Define conditions of X.

DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Freddybear]

She got off easy, after a DUI collision she should be in jail for a year or two.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, in many parts of the US, loss of one's driving license is equivalent to house arrest.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[hazah]

I don't think you comperhand what you are saying. A few blocks could verywell be half a day's walk.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[sandytaru]

This is the US we're talking about. Even in cities where there is mass transit, half the time it's terrible. For example, Atlanta doesn't so much have a train system as it has a pathetic excuse for one.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[SJHillman]

You do realize that for most of the US, the nearest public transportation is several days walk?

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[karmawarrior]

In most parts of the country, it's illegal for developers to build homes and businesses in close enough proximity that public transportation and walking are viable options.

Bizarrely, it's the libertarians that are usually behind these laws, as nothing says freedom more than being forced to choose a particular form of transportation...

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've walked to the nearest "grocery" store before. It took 1.5 hours to get to the Dollar General. They don't have produce or anything, so it was mostly because I had nothing better to do. It's 13.3 miles to my office. Why do I live so far away? Because I can't afford a house closer.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[tepples]

In Fort Wayne, Indiana, there are often 36 to 60 hour waits for the next bus.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Anubis IV]

The town I live in has about 200K folks and actually does have some public transportation available (which I was not aware of until I decided to do a little research before responding, so thank you for the prompting).

Near as I can tell, my options for getting to work are a 5-7 minute air conditioned car ride, a 13 minute bike ride, a 45 minute walk, or public transportation, which would apparently consist of a 5 minute walk, a 48 minute ride, and a 15 minute walk. Though not as pleasant as driving myself, biking or public transportation don't sound like they're out of the question until you consider the fact that I need to be presentable enough to work in an office environment and meet with clients by the time I arrive each morning. When it's around 90F (32C) by the time I arrive at work for about a third of the year, I can only afford to be outside for a few minutes before I'd need to get a shower and a change of clothes. Maybe I could pull it off in the winter, but I certainly couldn't right now.

Nonetheless, thanks for the suggestion, since it may work in a pinch if my car is having issues.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[HornWumpus]

Not really true. What is true is that it is impossible to sell homes in close enough proximity.

There are plenty of areas that will let you build homes on puny 1/7 acre lots. Only good areas have 1/2 acre lot minimums (for definitions of 'good' equal to 'no HOA, older areas'). Curiously it is the subdivisions further out that often have the tiny bay area style lots. Some people are just stupid. Too far out, HOA assholes, modern building standards and tiny lots. Worst of all possible combinations.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Bigby]

That is private transportation. And again, in certain parts of the country, that will bankrupt you. A 2 hour taxi ride to and from a grocery store would be up there on the OMG list of monetary transactions.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Bigby]

Where the hell are you talking about? Libertarians don't have the power to do anything, nor would they do this.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Zalbik]

You do realize that for most of the US, the nearest public transportation is several days walk?

1) Bullshit. See here
From the report:
"70% of people live in neighborhoods with public transportation"

2) You do realize that lacking access to public transportation is not nearly the same thing as house arrest?
She can still:
- Bike
- Use private transportation
- Bum rides off friends

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[SJHillman]

I never said most of the US *population* - just most of the US, as in geographic area. It's pretty obvious that the majority of people live in cities.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[rjstanford]

In geographic terms, you're correct. However, most people in the US live near public transportation.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[AuralityKev]

If you get a DUI under 21, you lose your license for 6 months. If you get caught (and it's your first offense) and you're 21 or over, it amounts to losing it for about 2 weeks. Least that's the way it is in the state of Minnesota. I don't see why they don't just make it so you lose your license for 6 months regardless of your age. It's crippling in most US cities. Our public transportation sucks.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[hab136]

If you click through to the article that makes the 70% claim, you realize that it says "An analysis of data from 371 transit providers in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas reveals that: Nearly 70 percent of large metropolitan residents live in neighborhoods with access to transit service of some kind."

So, it's not that 70% of Americans have access to public transportation; it's 70% of the people that live in the top 100 largest metro areas. What is the percentage overall, and what is the percentage of people that don't live in the top 100 metro areas? It's probably pretty low.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[HeckRuler]

I'm pretty sure that's a good example of BULLSHIT.
It's not that you're wrong, I mean, if you squint, and spin just right, you could take your definition and meaning of phrases to be correct. But the phrase "for most of the US, the nearest public transportation is several days walk" will be taken by most people to mean the most of the US population. You know, the ones doing the walking. It's like one of those stupid jokes where they purposely miscommunication or say something that could have two meanings. So your post primarily consists of bullshit.

And apparently it's an alluring piece of bullshit that the moderators ate up. Bravo Slashdot.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Rich0]

Well, the reality is that the mean probably is a few days walk, and that is due to a highly skewed distribution.

On the one hand you have the huge chunk of the population that lives near urban centers where the average walk is minutes to maybe an hour or two. On the other hand you have people living in the middle of Nebraska who would probably have to walk for a few months to get to a bus stop on a route that resembles an expedition from the age of discovery.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[dkf]

You do realize that for most of the US, the nearest public transportation is several days walk?

Is that "most" as in "most of the area" or "most of the population"? The former is highly believable, but who really cares about the lack of buses in Backwoods, Montana?

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[xenobyte]

She got off easy, after a DUI collision she should be in jail for a year or two.

She wasn't a celebrity. Lindsay Lohan got - for a first time DUI with no other people hurt (she broke her own wrist and her car) - both probation, monitoring, random urine checks and mandatory alcohol classes, as well as a driving ban.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time?

[Meski]

Shrug. So what? Getting a license back after a serious DUI shouldn't be allowed, even if it does cause the offender a high degree of hardship.

You can't delete a Facebook account?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, it wasn't possible to delete a facebook account. You can only deactivate them. I realise it's a technicality, but in a system based upon technicalities, it could serve to be an adequate defence?

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[tnk1]

I presume they would be satisfied with deactivation, or indeed, with her simply not using it. In TFA, it says they threw her in the can because she literally posted "LOL" about her DUI on FB after having been instructed to not use FB and the families of her victims noticed it. Presumably, even its continued existence on the Internet was not a problem as long as she wasn't communicating with it.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[strength_of_10_men]

Of course you can.

http://www.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account

I did it a year ago and have never looked back

Of course, whether or not FB actually deletes your data is another matter.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[Sir_Eptishous]

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Sheesh... Don't get so melodramatic. Thats just someone permanently deleting their FB account.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[FictionPimp]

You can delete your account. Deactivate is the method facebook wants you to use. They keep all your data and can easily bring your account back to life when you 'change your mind'. If you go the delete route, they claim to delete your data, but more importantly, you can never use that email address again to open a facebook account.

Deletion is facebook suicide, and it's why I went that route when I deleted mine. I don't see myself getting a new email address in the near future, and I can never use my current one to open a facebook account.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have deleted all your information, then how do they know to deny profile creation to your email address?

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[TheLink]

If you go the delete route, they claim to delete your data, but more importantly, you can never use that email address again to open a facebook account.

Sounds a bit contradictory to me... I suppose they could hash your email address instead of storing it. But I doubt they do that.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[FictionPimp]

Honestly, I think even if they do delete your data (which I doubt). They would hold on to the email address explicitly to deny you service as a deterrent. "Don't delete your account, bad things will happen..."

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[TheLink]

How's that a deterrent? Email addresses are a dime a thousand...

The more obvious reason is they are still keeping your account and data around, and they aren't bothering to set things up so that new accounts can be created with email addresses from old deleted accounts.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[mark-t]

Not quite. Evidently, she posted the "LOL" remark about her DUI on FB *BEFORE* her court appearance, and it was this flippant remark that prompted the judge to demand that she delete her FB account (merely deactivating it may have been adequate to satisfy the judge's request. I am not sure about that). When the judge later learned the account was still active, however, she then faced contempt of court charges, and was put in jail for that.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[celtic_hackr]

BS. No they don't I've deleted my account before and rejoined using thre same email address.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[chrismcb]

Presumably, even its continued existence on the Internet was not a problem as long as she wasn't communicating with it.

You need to read it again.
Accord TFA she made the LOL comment after the accident, the family told the courd
When she initially appeared in court, the Judge told her to delete her account.
She didn't. She was found in contempt and sentenced to 48 hours in jail.
She posted LOL before being told to delete it. She left the account alone, and its continued existence got her thrown in jail for 2 days.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account?

[Rich0]

One way to find out for sure - design a virus or XSS attack that triggers that delete function, and after 95% of the Facebook-using population deletes their accounts you'll see if they have an undelete feature.

I have mod points...

[dtmancom]

How do I mod the judge a Troll?

Re:I have mod points...

[mcgrew]

How do I mod the judge a Troll?

You can't, you already commented!

Finally!

[sir_eccles]

I had always wondered what "LOL" meant.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it meant "lots of love". As in, "your grandfather died today, LOL"

Re:Finally!

[dzfoo]

That's sad, LOL!

Re:Finally!

[poofmeisterp]

I had always wondered what "LOL" meant.

I thought it was the replacement of a period at the end of a sentence (or the beginning of a sentence, depending on the mood of the individual). :)

I don't get it.

[pclminion]

A judge ordering a defendant to delete evidence of a crime... Well, I must say that's a new one for me.

Re:I don't get it.

[SJHillman]

How is this evidence of a crime?

Re:I don't get it.

[pclminion]

A post indicating that "I'm drunk and just crashed into a car LOL" is not evidence of a crime?

Not only is it evidence of the DUI, it's evidence that the defendant posted the "LOL" post. The judge is ordering the deletion of evidence which was used to justify the order itself.

Re:I don't get it.

[gl4ss]

it's a public confession.

ordering her to delete it sounds stupid - ordering her to keep it there forever would have sounded more like a punishment, you know, nevar forget.

Re:I don't get it.

[jader3rd]

A judge ordering a defendant to delete evidence of a crime... Well, I must say that's a new one for me.

It's possible she wasn't taking the trial seriously, until Facebook got involved.

Re:I don't get it.

[Tastecicles]

yeah, that's called spoliation and it's a criminal offence.

Re:I don't get it.

[MozeeToby]

The post was presumably documented by the court and prosecutors. By your logic, washing the blood off the walls after the crime scene guys have been there and done their job and a judge told you to go ahead and get it cleaned up would be destruction of evidence.

Re:I don't get it.

[SJHillman]

So if I posted "I caused the Holocaust" that's suddenly evidence? It may be potentially relevant, but I'd hardly call it evidence in its own right

Re:I don't get it.

[camperdave]

A post indicating that "I'm drunk and just crashed into a car LOL" is not evidence of a crime?

Not only is it evidence of the DUI, it's evidence that the defendant posted the "LOL" post. The judge is ordering the deletion of evidence which was used to justify the order itself.

No, it is not evidence of a crime... at least not the DUI charge. She could have been completely sober and merely posted that she was drunk. It is evidence of a crime if she was ordered to stay off facebook, and that was posted after the order.

Re:I don't get it.

[celtic_hackr]

Anything you say can and will be used against you. Nothing you say, to the police or other second parties [unless under oath], can or will be used to help you.

So, yes it's evidence because you said it, and anything you say directly can be used as evidence for or against you.

Now, this case is a bit worrying. Sure she's a DUI driver and she should be punished and have her right to drive taken away.

The article doesn't state clearly whether deleting her facebook account was part of some plea bargain deal or not. In either case, it's disturbing. No judge or prosecutor should be making deals or orders to take away free speech rights, free association rights, freedom of press rights.

Let's face it, FB and Google+ and other social networking sites are the personal blogs of many "ordinary" people. Some people have real blogs. Blogs are the new priinting press. Let's face lots of us get news from bloggers and friends on FB or /. or wherever. Newspapers are dead. News magazines aren't far behind. This [the inrternet] is the new Soap Box in the town square. Forcing a person to delete a FB account is thse same as ordering them not to jump on a soap box in front of City Hall.

This sets a very disturbing precedent. As much as I hate FB and would not shed a tear at it's closure.

Re:I don't get it.

[pclminion]

No, it is not evidence of a crime... at least not the DUI charge. She could have been completely sober and merely posted that she was drunk.

So, confessions aren't evidence. I'm learning all kinds of new shit today.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge: I order you to delete that post.

Defendant: *Deletes post* What post are you referring to?

Judge: Uhh...

Re:I don't get it.

[Holladon]

It is evidence. Evidence and proof aren't the same thing, and not all evidence is of equally-probative value.

Taunting

[hawguy]

When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down, or even your whole FB account if you've shown that you're not responsible enough to use it wisely. If the judge can put you in jail I don't see why it's worse if he tells you to stay off of FB.

Re:Taunting

[jimbolauski]

Turn the fake outrage meter down a few notches, she may be guilty of being a dumbass but how did she taunt the victims?
Was the post directed at them?
Lets pretend like the message was intended for the victims is "My dumb bass got a DUI and I hit a carLOL" even considered taunting?

Re:Taunting

[hazah]

Except there was no actual taunt. Carelessness at best. And a judge being able to do this to anyone is absolutely horrifying.

Re:Taunting

[bluefoxlucid]

And I think you're a dumbass and somebody should have sex with your sister in your bed so we can all laugh at you.

Do I go to jail now?

Re:Taunting

[FictionPimp]

Because being put in jail for a crime doesn't violate your freedom of speech. Being forced to delete your facebook posts/account does.

If it was facebook who deleted her account, that would be ok with me. It's up to them to decide what kind of speech they want on their servers. But the government has no right to moderate speech unless it is causing a immediate and local danger (fire in a theater). This is the same with the video causing all that trouble in the middle east. Yes, the government could take it down, but doing so violates the core principle of this country.

People look at idiots spewing hate as a bad thing. I look at it as a nice big poster that helps me separate out the idiots from the people worth spending my time with. In any case get a double dose of information. For example, with that anti-muslim video you learn that there are a few people in america who are douche bags and you learn that there are many many more 'muslims' in the middle east who are out of control, immoral, violent, murders just looking for excuses to bring their hate to the rest of the world. In the case of this ladies facebook post, you learn she is immature, immoral, and non-repentant. Basically, she's a horrible person. So if I was ever to meet her, I'd know to stay clear.

Re:Taunting

[pla]

When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down

You can taunt your victims in person. You can taunt your victims by mail. You can taunt your victims by phone. You can taunt your victims via press conference (if the press considers you important enough to give you an audience). You can taunt your victims with frickin' sky-writing for all it matters.

And yes, you can taunt your victims on Facebook.

The fact that she chose to do it at all makes her an ass, but it doesn't take away her first amendment right to act like an ass.


That said - She may have agreed to delete her account as a condition of a lighter sentence. Personally, I have a problem with games like that in general, but since it happens, and she took the deal, she damned well better hold up her side if she wants to remain on the outside of a cage.

Re:Taunting

[serviscope_minor]

is "My dumb bass got a DUI and I hit a carLOL" even considered taunting?

It taunts grammar nazis like me who don't consider lol to be a punctuation mark.

Re:Taunting

[Penguinisto]

Well, according to how Facebook works, the analogy would be akin to the victims walking over to the perp's house to see the flippant remark posted on a piece of paper taped to the front door.

IOW, the victims had to actually go out of their way, and actually go there to see it. How can that be taunting?

Now if the perp was posting to the victim's wall, sending IMs, or suchlike? Okay, you may have had a better argument in that case.

Re:Taunting

[Anonymous Coward]

'LOL' is hardly a taunt in this era of lolcats. It's more of a vocal utterance like "er" "uh" "hmm" "lol". People that say 'LOL' are rarely laughing out loud. I think this is someone reading too much into this. If you took the 'LOL' off the Facebook comment, would anyone have a problem with her post? I interpret this to be more of a "Oh man, I can't believe what a moron I am" kind of 'LOL'. Am I the only one that finds a little bit of dark humor in self-failure? It's more of a coping mechanism really, and the whole process of posting a comment like that probably serves more for unloading some stress than boasting. From the text of the post she clearly wasn't proud of the incident.

Re:Taunting

[ModernGeek]

"The state has made an action, of which you have criticized, remove said criticism or face incarceration."

Freedom of Press shall not be infringed.

Re:Taunting

[spire3661]

Please tell me you are not a US citizen....

Re:Taunting

[Urza9814]

"Congress shall make no law" does not refer to "the government" (judicial arm), but to Congress (legislative arm). The "make no law" part reinforces that, as the judicial arm does not make laws while the legislative arm does.

That statement hasn't been true for over a hundred years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Re:Taunting

[Bigby]

Not anyone. Anyone that is guilty. Which was pleaded. Once guilty, you lose your rights. So no, it is not horrifying. It just is what it is.

Re:Taunting

[mdielmann]

So if I was ever to meet her, I'd know to stay clear.

Especially if she's driving.

Re:Taunting

[ClioCJS]

"if somebody says something I don't like, they should lose their constitutional rights".

And people wonder why Congress, the police, and judges don't respect constitutional rights. Because of emotional reactions like yours. Even prisoners in prison retain their first amendment rights.

Re:Taunting

[Rich0]

Except that EVERYBODY is guilty of something. How does having some judge browbeat somebody after the fact improve our society?

The purpose of the justice system should be to deter crime and rehabilitate offenders. It is in the interest of society to make that system take as little time as possible so that everybody can get on with living. If you want to make sure somebody is getting on with life and help them find a job, by all means do it. If you want to pester them about using Facebook, find something better to do.

Re:Taunting

[Rich0]

That said - She may have agreed to delete her account as a condition of a lighter sentence. Personally, I have a problem with games like that in general, but since it happens, and she took the deal, she damned well better hold up her side if she wants to remain on the outside of a cage.

I think that enforcing the deal just legitimizes it. Much of what we call justice today is about grabbing somebody, charging them with about 35 lifetimes in prison, then offering them 5 years if they plead guilty, and then six months in prison and a bunch of bizarre conditions that you could never put into a law on their own if they agree to them. The accused can either take their chances with 35 lifetimes in prison, or bend over and take it. I can't condone that sort of thing, and really we're all responsible for it as members of society.

The justice system should be about figuring out whether somebody actually did something wrong, punishing them, and rehabilitating them, and doing all of it as quickly as possible. It should actually be done with no long-term financial hardship to the accused, even if convicted. Being unable to get a job and having a mountain of debt isn't really an effective way to treat somebody that you're trying to rehabilitate.

Condition of release

[ZombieBraintrust]

Sounds like she agreed to get off facebook as part of deal for less jail time. Other deals you might make with the judge. "Less time in exchange for serving in the military", "Less time in exchange for community service", "Less time in exchange for entering into rehab", "Less time with an agreement to avoid certain people"
It is still kinda of awful. Judges should avoid restricting peoples first amendment rights.

Re:Condition of release

[idontgno]

The rather lightweight description in TFA (stupid sound-bite TV journalism) makes it sound like the order to "delete" her FB account was at her first court appearance (arraignment?). I'm not sure if there was a specific condition to the judge's order (like a bail condition), or if the judge just issued an order cold and expected it to stick.

However, it's not like there isn't precedent for a judge to issue an order supressing freedom of speech early in a court proceeding. The rationale may be completely different, but the mechanism is basically the same.

Re:Condition of release

[chrismcb]

The rather lightweight description in TFA (stupid sound-bite TV journalism) makes it sound like the order to "delete" her FB account was at her first court appearance (arraignment?).

From TFA:

When Asher initially appeared in court

It did more than make it sound like it was her first court appearance, it came right out and said it was her first court appearance.

Re:Condition of release

[Rich0]

How about less time for letting somebody rape you, or less time for mowing the judge's lawn every Saturday, or so on? Just because you agree to it doesn't make it OK to enforce the agreement.

There is a reason that government is not permitted to dispense cruel or unusual punishment. It shouldn't be able to dispense an inordinate amount of ordinary punishment to coerce you into accepting unusual punishment.

Limitations

[JBMcB]

The judge can, during the proceedings, probably do nearly anything he likes. However, once punishment is decided, I don't think he can do anything else. I'm 99% sure he can't permanently ban you from Facebook forever. She should have just disabled her account, then re-activated it when sentencing was complete.

Re:FB Comparable to the Telephone ....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Facebook, not e-mail, your Internet connection, or your telephone service. If you are completely dependant on the services of one social media platform you really should really rethink the way you live your life.

You can remove one of these?

[biggaijin]

I think the judge's order should include instructions on how to remove a Facebook page. I tried to delete mine once, and couldn't find a way to make it go away completely. I had to settle for removing all the personal info from it....

Re:"Contempt of court" is pretty powerful

[N1AK]

Sorry, I missed a detail. Although she did post something that caused offence I don't think it came anywhere near justifying that either a post or account be deleted. There seems to be a lack of clarity over what was actually ordered and when in the coverage so far. The judge likely didn't order her to 'delete' her facebook account for shits and giggles, and some people are saying the original order related to content not the entire account.

A Bit Too Far

[Jason Levine]

At first, I thought this was part of a plea deal. Shut down your Facebook account and do some other things and get your sentence reduced. However, it actually sounds like she went before the judge and he just said "Shut down your Facebook account." Now, ordering her not to post on Facebook for the duration of the trial, I could see. Given her posting a "lol" comment about her car crash, I'd say banning her from social media until the trial was over would be appropriate. Once the sentence came in, she might even face a more permanent (or at least longer) ban. But telling her right off the bat to delete her Facebook account seems like it goes a bit too far.

That said, it's stupid to just ignore a judge's orders. This person is going to decide your fate and has the power to make your life miserable. You can have your lawyer protest the order. Perhaps he might even find some way to change the judge's mind. However, you don't just ignore it outright and then act surprised when the judge comes down hard on you.

Who judges the judges?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

In America (and many other countries), judges get to be petty tyrants with few restrictions or consequences for rulings no matter how nutbar they may be.

Re:Who judges the judges?

[Zarquon]

obquote: "I *AM* the law!"

Re:Who judges the judges?

[silas_moeckel]

That would be the executive as judges can not enforce anything.

Re:Who judges the judges?

[rahvin112]

In my locality there is a judge that did the petty tyrant routine and he's been essentially fired at this point and the Bar complaint is still pending.

Re:Who judges the judges?

[jader3rd]

In America (and many other countries), judges get to be petty tyrants with few restrictions or consequences for rulings no matter how nutbar they may be.

Yes, if only in America we had a way to appeal court decisions.

Re:Who judges the judges?

[Rich0]

Well, the fact is that the executives uphold all the petty rulings, and while they're at it they also act like petty tyrants with few restrictions or consequences. The only time there is real conflict is when one actually steps directly on the toes of the other, which they tend to avoid, and if it happens then whoever has the most guns wins.

odd

[shentino]

Why was the order issued to her and not ot Facebook?

Last time I tried to delete a facebook account Facebook openly defied my request, so this order may well be impossible to obey.

Facebook sucks. They hold your data hostage and flat out refuse to let go of it.

Site constraints

[dmomo]

What if the site did not allow for account deletion? Facebook arguably doesn't allow this. Maybe you can deactivate, but never delete. Even if it did allow deletion, what if it were some other site that did not allow it. How could the judge order something that isn't (easily) possible?

Now, suppose the judge orders you to give your password, but the site TOS forbids you from giving out the password? Can a judge order you to violate a TOS?

Re:Site constraints

[gnasher719]

Now, suppose the judge orders you to give your password, but the site TOS forbids you from giving out the password? Can a judge order you to violate a TOS?

Of course the judge can order it. Whether he or she is right or wrong to do it, that's another question. You can ask your lawyer to make the judge change that order. And if it turns out that the judge was wrong, then presumably the order would be changed. What you can't do is ignore the order. Well you can, but as we've seen here, it's unwise.

Re:Site constraints

[danomac]

I don't see why not. Facebook got overruled.

Re:in nazi germany

[jameshofo]

It does suck that she's such a b**** but that doesn't mean we have to circumvent the first amendment for her foolishness. It would be more appropriate to ask facebook to suspend her account, they aren't obligated to give her the platform to spread her "free speech".

I thought facebook made it impossible?

[damn_registrars]

If you were to delete your account, there would still be so many things related to you on other accounts that it would be pretty meaningless. And that is assuming that facebook would actually obey your wishes and get rid of everything you posted....

welcome to America

[damn_registrars]

She got off easy, after a DUI collision she should be in jail for a year or two.

DUIs here are a joke, at least the first 7 or 8 of them. She might serve jail time if she kills a few people doing it again. Hell every town in this country has at least one (if not several small armies of) lawyer who specializes just in getting DUI scum off the hook.

Re:welcome to America

[RKThoadan]

That's true for a straight DUI, but once there is a collision involved it's a whole 'nother story.

Yes, obviously, the article says so

[wonkey_monkey]

Can a Court Order You To Delete a Facebook Account?

the judge told her to delete her Facebook account,

So, yes, then. Also, when you copy-and-paste to create your summary, at least out for things like:

after the July 20 accident

where there has been no previous mention of any accident.

Re:Yes, obviously, the article says so

[wonkey_monkey]

Oh yeah, and who the hell are Asher and Kittinger? The summary doesn't even try to explain.

Re:Yes, obviously, the article says so

[dohzer]

Exactly what I was wondering.

EXCEPT

[Tastecicles]

You can NOT delete a Facebook account. You can remove wallposts, but they remain on the database. You can deactivate the account but it will persist for several weeks. but you CANNOT delete the account!

Re:EXCEPT

[jader3rd]

You can NOT delete a Facebook account. You can remove wallposts, but they remain on the database. You can deactivate the account but it will persist for several weeks. but you CANNOT delete the account!

Yes, but you can stop using the account when it's part of your legal agreement to do so.

Re:EXCEPT

[eth1]

You can NOT delete a Facebook account. You can remove wallposts, but they remain on the database. You can deactivate the account but it will persist for several weeks. but you CANNOT delete the account!

This was my initial thought. Might actually be beneficial, though. I'd have just told the judge that FB makes it more or less impossible to delete an account, so could you please send an order to them to do it. Heck, that wouldn't be punishment, that would be a benefit. :P

But But...

[Budgreen]

If I delete my Facebook, I end up on a few watch lists :(

Not much to do with Facebook

[cvtan]

Just don't piss off the judge or a "Moron Alert" will flash over your head.

send them to coventry

[way2trivial]

separate them from yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_(short_story)

Ask a lawyer

[Stan92057]

Ask a lawyer hes the only one who can give you legal and correct answer.

What about offending Islamic people with movies?

[AchilleTalon]

So, you are jailed for an irresponsible, irrespective comment on FB. On another hand, you can produce a bad movie offending thousands of people and it's free speech. The movie will result in killing of half a dozen people and you are free and protected by the Constitution. Someone can explain this one?

How US law really works

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

This only applies to the USA.

I'm not a lawyer. But lucky for me my best friend is. He has taught me a lot about how the law really works in the USA. Most lay people have the mistaken belief that all rights are absolute. For example, they think that the right to free speech means you cannot have that restricted. That is simply not true as there is another thread on Slashdot just below this one about a guy who is now in jail facing a one million dollar bail request to get out for exercising his "rights to free speech" on an ESPN website. Your "right to free speech" does not trump copyright law is another example. You can't threaten to kill or harm people and then say "Free speech!" or "I was just kidding" and necessarily get away with it. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against gun restrictions but they have also been clear to state that such rulings should not be interpreted to mean that there can't be any restrictions on guns.

Re:registered guns...

[slashrio]

...are only used in about 2% of the gun related crimes. The overwhelming majority of crimes takes place with unregistered guns. At least, that's what I read some time ago in a commentary piece somewhere.

Re:FB Comparable to the Telephone ....

[Tastecicles]

Talk to Kevin Mitnick. As a young teen he was prohibited by court order from owning a computer or operating a touchtone phone until his 18th birthday.

Source: The Fugitive Game

Re:How does a death sentence save money ...

[slashrio]

... if the perpetrator is kept in a 'death row' cell until almost dying from high age?

A better punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

She should have been ordered to use Google+

In yet other news...

[MickLinux]

In yet other news... abortion is murder: the killing of an innocent human for the desire of the one who does it.

Gun proliferation, while bad [and in some cases indicative of murderous thoughts], is not necessarily murder.

Go on, get some grounding. You sound like a soundbite.

I'm libertarian on most things. But if the whole purpose of the law is to protect the interests of the strong, while ignoring the weak, then I really don't see the point of it. When you approve of abortion, you cut the logical feet out from under the disapproval of any other murder. In point of fact, regardless of what a currently-insane society says, murder is evil, and should not be committed, no matter what the flavor.

Re:In yet other news...

[Uberbah]

In yet other news...90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, before the fetus has the brainpower of the average housefly.

FTFY.

I'm libertarian on most things.

So you're one of those people who oppose abortion AND oppose any social services to either care for that fetus or ensure it has a decent life when it comes out 6 months later. Tell us again how pro-life you are....

Re:In yet other news...

[Holladon]

When you approve of abortion, you cut the logical feet out from under the disapproval of any other murder. In point of fact, regardless of what a currently-insane society says, murder is evil, and should not be committed, no matter what the flavor.

Do please let us know when you start collecting signatures for a law requiring biological parents to donate nonessential matching organs where their children will die without an organ transplant.

Re:In yet other news...

[Uberbah]

So you're one of those people who oppose abortion AND oppose any social services to either care for that fetus or ensure it has a decent life when it comes out 6 months later. Tell us again how pro-life you are....

(since you didn't address it the first time)

Re:In yet other news...

[MickLinux]

My point is that I don't think that social services is the proper or effective way to care for the child, without leading to the horrors of fascism later. That, too, is a threat to the child.

I have yet to see Frederich Hayak be wrong in one instance. Read his "Road to Serfdom". Don't buy it -- get it from the library. If you should somehow be convinced that it is right, enough to want to buy it later, I guess you can.

In line with that, I put up, not shut up. I've put my money where my mouth is. Would that you did the same [where *my* mouth is, not yours], but I'm not forcing it.

Therefore, being against social services doesn't affect how pro-life I am: my pro-lifeness is consistent.

That said, I am not one of those who wants to gut social services, in order to make the rich richer. I want to gut the entire steal-and-redistribute fascist system, and just to gut the end that gives back a little to the poor of what was stolen, seems a farce.

That's part of why I could never support Romney, or any candidate whom the Republican leadership -- according to Romney's own words before Iowa -- would allow to win a primary.

I'm probably going to write in "Ron Paul" this election. I'd vote for Johnson, but he's pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. If he just said "state issue", I could have gone with it, because murder *is* a state issue. Likewise, if he had said that marriage is not something that the government should be involved in at all, I could have gone with it. But he didn't, and I can't. As I said, I'm pretty libertarian, not a party Libertarian.

Silly Judges

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they know that we couldn't delete our Facebook accounts no matter how hard we try?

Facebook data is FOR-EH-VURRRRRRRRRR .

Last time I checked we ordinary schlubs are merely allowed to "deactivate" our accounts.

Example:
Are you sure you want to deactivate your account?
Deactivating your account will disable your profile and remove your name and picture from most things you've shared on Facebook. Some information may still be visible to others, such as your name in their friends list and messages you sent.
Reason for leaving (Required):

        My account was hacked.
        I get too many emails, invitations, and requests from Facebook.
        I have another Facebook account.
        This is temporary. I'll be back.
        I don't feel safe on Facebook.
        I spend too much time using Facebook.
        I have a privacy concern.
        I don't find Facebook useful.
        I don't understand how to use Facebook.
        Other

Please explain further:
Email opt out: Opt out of receiving future emails from Facebook
Note: Even after you deactivate, your friends can still invite you to events, tag you in photos, or ask you to join groups. If you opt out, you will NOT receive these email invitations and notifications from your friends.

Sounds like overreach to me...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

I can see possibly ordering the deletion of a Facebook posting, but an entire account? Not as long as the person isn't violating FB's TOS.

I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Firethorn]

You know, I don't think I've ever suggested a 'cheap' way of actually doing the execution? I've suggested nitrogen asphixiation as a method that's painless and doesn't mess the body up, require somebody with medical training(and thus Hippocratic Oath to deal with), or restricted, hard to obtain chemicals. You just need a reasonably airtight room and some tanks of nitrogen(available from the local welding supply).

I've mostly suggested streamlining the appeals process, eliminating some of the duplication of effort, and restricting the death penalty to the 'worst offenders'. We're not just talking 1st degree murder. My general standard is '3 or more killed, or deliberate torture in addition to the murder'. You don't try to sentence a 60 year old doctor who killed his wife by poison after catching her cheating to death. You go for the under 25 year old gangbanger 'executioner' who killed 6 people with his bare hands with that sentence. The second isn't containable in a minimum security prison, the first is.

Plus, one thing to realize is that prison costs can vary wildly. A Life in prison without possible parole sentence is the normal replacement for death, but those who receive it are often not 'average' convicts. You might be able to warehouse them cheaper than maintaining them on a death row, but I will call 'foul' when anti-DP groups cite costs and use average incarceration figures, incuding minimum security prisons*, when most of those being convicted of murder are going straight for max, which costs 3-10 times as much as minimum. Even then, you have the problem that when they hit 60 and start needing medical care provided by the prison system... In the end, I conclude that any savings are 'it depends on the specific case', and shouldn't really be considered that much. The decision should be on the basis of 'the dudes just that dangerous', or 'what they did was just that wrong'.

*Though I'll admit that not all do.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[fast turtle]

One thing to keep in mind is that it takes a Unanimous Verdict from a jury to apply the death penalty. Because of this, I feel that we really do need to streamline the process a bit by cutting out 2/3 of the appeals. In fact, I don't see why there's even an automatic appeal of the penalty because getting 12 people to agree that someone is that much of a threat to society is like herding cats. Let the jury decision stand.

I do agree that the penalty shouldn't be carried out immediately but no more then 10 years should be wasted before executing them. In the case of these god awfully long sentences, replace the damn things with proper punishment such as Public Flogging in the middle of the Town Square. That might get the message through the the crooks that "You're Behaviour is Unacceptable" enough to remember the old saying "If You can't do the Time then Don't do the Crime". It will also serve the purpose of informing other potential crooks that they'll get their asses beat should they step too far out of line and bring back some responsibility to our society. Hell the first people I'd apply the new rule to would be those Goldman-Sachs execs who simply walked away with billions of dollars after screwing the entire country. Do the same to many of these "So Called CEO's" that run a company into the ground and walk away with Golden Parachutes and maybe we'd finally get this country back to being successful and out of everyone elses hair. Guess I can dream.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[thoth]

One thing to keep in mind is that it takes a Unanimous Verdict from a jury to apply the death penalty.

What's that have to do with it? That just means a totally botched investigation, a bogus eye witness (perhaps not intentional but witnesses aren't always correct either), some crucial piece of evidence overlooked/not collected/not followed up, or something those lines are an innocent person is about to be killed.

I used to be all in favor of the death penalty... and then a series of cases were overturned (if memory serves, many from Dallas, TX and it was pretty obvious the prosecutors were just convicting warm bodies to close their cases) releasing innocent people from death row. That's just a disgusting error almost made.

Check out the list of exonerated death row inmates and tell me a "unanimous verdict" must totally mean they did it. What BS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Firethorn]

What's that have to do with it? That just means a totally botched investigation, a bogus eye witness (perhaps not intentional but witnesses aren't always correct either), some crucial piece of evidence overlooked/not collected/not followed up, or something those lines are an innocent person is about to be killed.

Generally speaking, I prefer that ALL trials be held to a high standard, not just DP ones. Courts that have difficulty holding a fair trial* for a DP case is likely going to have even worse problems with non-DP cases. I'm willing to bet that there are many orders of magnitude more people improperly convicted of a non-DP crime who end up dying in prison than are executed improperly. Perhaps fewer resources on appeals, more on doing the trial right in the first place?

*And I hold no special regard for our criminal trial system; at best it's one of the better examples that exist today. I'd love to see a system that's fairer on average; but it's difficult.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[arth1]

One thing to keep in mind is that it takes a Unanimous Verdict from a jury to apply the death penalty. Because of this, I feel that we really do need to streamline the process a bit by cutting out 2/3 of the appeals. In fact, I don't see why there's even an automatic appeal of the penalty because getting 12 people to agree that someone is that much of a threat to society is like herding cats. Let the jury decision stand.

You don't know much about sociology and psychology, I take it? Herd mentality means it's easier to get 12 people to agree than it is to get 2-3 people to agree. Standing up against 11 others is a lot harder than standing up to just one or two.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Genda]

Wow... I'm not even sure where to start with this. Since 1970 over 140 people have been liberated from death row through the later discovery of irrefutable evidence of their innocence. The problem has never been juries. The problem is with Prosecuting Attorneys who've committed morally reprehensible acts to win cases at any cost including the cost of sending innocent people to death row. It happens, there is a rich body of evidence to prove it. So your presumption of guilt is at best a pipe-dream.

We know innocent people get executed. One was just executed in Texas earlier this year and knowing the man was almost certainly innocent, Governor Perry let him meet his maker. That's our justice system. Its wimpy to let someone off of death row, we kill people. The whole point is that there are countless people doing the time who didn't do the crime. Our criminal justice system is flat busted. Really, its all broke up. Innocent people all over the place taking pleas to avoid spending draconian sentences in prison. Guilty monsters that need to be locked up forever, doing almost no time in a revolving door legal system. That by definition is broken.

I agree prosecute the squeal right out of the little piggies from Wall Street... maybe taking away their wealth, privilege and their beliefs that they're above the laws of the land would be make them excellent examples to those who might follow in their footsteps. Making Sausage of them seems a wee bit extreme. Let the punishment fit the crime. Have them spend the rest of their lives doing house work at homeless shelters. Make a contribution to society as well as teach them a little humility. Executing them sound a little French Revolution for my taste (remember a lot of good people were killed during the French Revolution for no more reason than their powdered wig was a wee bit too nice.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Genda]

In fact in recent years with the shortage of prison space (the ongoing disaster that is our war on drugs), and the growing epidemic of crime fueled by drugs (primarily street gangs), prisons have become part of a plea bargain revolving door merry-go-round. People get sand bagged, prosecutors throw the book at you, heaping felony after felony until you're looking at a potential prison term that looks like the half life of the universe. Then they throw you a sweet deal to be out is no time at all, and even if you're innocent, you can't afford to pass it up, because if you lose you go away until hell freezes over. So now we have innocents in prison and monsters who get out in no time at all to help process the mess that is out legal justice system.

A high standard of juris prudence would begin by making certain that Prosecutors weren't using their office as a political spring board and that their measure for success included how many innocent people they let go as well as how many bad guys they put in jail. Getting it right should trump being hard on crime. We should punish prosecutors who are as hard on innocence as they are on crime.

New technologies promise to give us the ability to virtually read minds in the near future. Witnesses are horrible, every study proves that people are terrible at remembering traumatic events accurately. Your biological memories don't lie. When we can see your memory, we'll get the truth and you will be either innocent or guilty. You still have the right not to self incriminate, but then you have to live with evidence at trial, and jurors think pleading the fifth is just another way of saying you caught me red handed. I look forward to far fewer bogus convictions.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Genda]

I am way anti-death penalty, but you don't know what you're taking about here. Nitrogen Narcosis is perhaps one of the nicest ways to cash in your chips available to human kind, you go out giddy, happy, painless as hell... then lights out sweet prince. It's the build up of CO2 that causes all the nasty things you're describing. CO2 in the blood causes acidosis and over about 12% becomes a real horror to be any part of. You breath pure N2, and you excrete your CO2 just like normal, just no O2 to sustain the metabolic machinery. Real quick you go bye bye. In fact a number of states looked at N2 as a humane death penalty and most decided no, because the prisoners died with blissful smiles and they wanted them to suffer a little for the benefit of the victims witnessing.

Tell me that isn't just a little messed up...

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Firethorn]

Some days I think I should write a book and self-publish on Amazon. I happen believe that we need to end the war on drugs - it'd easily become a whole chapter in the book, with trying to explain all the nuances and reasonings. Along with that, prisons need to concentrate on reform, not warehousing. When I go 'Evil Overlord', I propose things like triaging the prisons - execute the worst x% in order to free up the necessary resources to reform the rest. Druggies included(though a lot of them can better be helped simply by transferring them to a system that treats their additction as a medical, not a criminal, problem).

However - "growing epidemic"? It's growing in Mexico, but I think it's pretty much evened out in the USA. The revolving door has been the case since I was a kid. As countries like Norway show, being 'hard on crime' is actually conterproductive - you spend another $300k or so keeping somebody in prison for another decade, and they're MORE likely to commit more crimes when they get out. It's been shown that another 10-20% over incarceration expenses spent on education, reform efforts work.

Getting it right should trump being hard on crime. We should punish prosecutors who are as hard on innocence as they are on crime.

Exactly. If I was doing a scoring system, imprisoning an innocent should count as -100, where imprisoning a guilty person is only worth 1.

Your biological memories don't lie. When we can see your memory, we'll get the truth and you will be either innocent or guilty.

Actually, they do, for the same reason witnesses suck. Personally, I'm more about fxing the problems - it would be ideal if we could do an intervention BEFORE the bank robbery, stopping it entirely, not needing to send anybody to prison.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[Firethorn]

The problem is with Prosecuting Attorneys who've committed morally reprehensible acts to win cases at any cost including the cost of sending innocent people to death row. It happens, there is a rich body of evidence to prove it.

Which is why I want to see the justice system reformed; not the death penalty eliminated. That's like putting red light cameras up on a poorly designed intersection rather than fixing the yellow timing. I view a LiP w/o parole to be the same as the death penalty. I don't care whether it's murder, rape, or shoplifting, trials should be fair and dedicated to finding the truth.

Re:I'm a proponent of the Death Penalty

[bonehead]

Our criminal justice system is flat busted.

Yep, it is. Not involving the DP, but here's two cases. I personally know both of these guys....

#1. 3rd offense OWI. No injuries, no property damage.

Time served: 3 years, 2 month.

#2. Assault with a deadly weapon. Beat the shit out of someone with an aluminum baseball bat. Guy nearly died. Girlfriend came to see him in the hospital and didn't recognize him due to the facial damage.

Time served: 13 months.

So, apparently, doing something that "could" or "might" cause harm is worse than intentionally doing actual harm.

Overreaching Ignorance of How the Courts Work

[fm6]

Not true at all. If a judge simply says, "I'm going to make you stand on your head because I think that's a fair punishment for what you did" it will certainly be overturned on appeal, and there's a good chance the judge will be censured.

On the other hand, if the judge says, "Well, I can send you to jail for a year and fine you up the wazoo. But I think making you stand on your head is a more effective punishment. Which do you prefer?" he's certainly acting within his discretion.

Pro death == pro stupid

[TiggertheMad]

I've mostly suggested streamlining the appeals process, eliminating some of the duplication of effort, and restricting the death penalty to the 'worst offenders'. We're not just talking 1st degree murder. My general standard is '3 or more killed, or deliberate torture in addition to the murder'. You don't try to sentence a 60 year old doctor who killed his wife by poison after catching her cheating to death. You go for the under 25 year old gangbanger 'executioner' who killed 6 people with his bare hands with that sentence. The second isn't containable in a minimum security prison, the first is.

The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people.

In any group of convicted murderers, there are going to be some people who are innocent. That's just a fact. People (juries) make mistakes. So some number of people you put to death are going to be innocent. It might be one in a hundred or one in ten thousand, but they are going to be there regardless of your degree of diligence. And when 15 years later, when new evidence comes to light as it seems to with alarmingly frequency, you can't just let them out of jail with an apology.

Whenever I talk to pro-death penalty people, I ask them if they would still support the death penalty if they or one of their loved ones was one of those one in a thousand cases where an innocent person was wrongly convicted, I have yet to hear a convincing 'yes'. Are you so strong in your belief of the value of capitol punishment that you would be willing to die to support it? Would you stand outside the prison when your child was executed with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard', when you knew they were only guilty of not having a good alibi and a good lawyer?

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people.

The question you are ignoring is, is the death penalty a deterrent against murder? If it's not a deterrent, then you've made your point. If it is a deterrent, then by refusing to execute, how many random innocent people have you sentenced to a grisly brutal death?

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The second an innocent person is executed by the state, every single one of us is guilty of murder. And there's a very good chance that it's already happened.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Q-Hack!]

The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people....
  It might be one in a hundred or one in ten thousand,..

I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low. Mostly we just see circumstantial stories about somebodies innocence. If it turned out to be one in a hundred, then we would need to take a serious look at the processes involved. However, I have no problem with an error rate of one in ten thousand death penalty convictions being wrong.

Whenever I talk to pro-death penalty people, I ask them if they would still support the death penalty if they or one of their loved ones was one of those one in a thousand cases where an innocent person was wrongly convicted, I have yet to hear a convincing 'yes'. Are you so strong in your belief of the value of capitol punishment that you would be willing to die to support it? Would you stand outside the prison when your child was executed with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard', when you knew they were only guilty of not having a good alibi and a good lawyer?

This little strawman is always a fun one. Let me turn it around on you. If I knew for a fact that my child committed a crime that merited the death penalty, heck, even if I am the one who turned him in, I still wouldn't stand outside the prison with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard.'

No the system isn't perfect, but it is functional. The simple fact that innocent people are removed from death row at all shows that the system is working. I would agree with the idea that those wrongly accused should be compensated for the mental anguish inflicted by the ordeal, but we should have faith that the innocent people will be weeded out eventually.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[shutdown -p now]

Thousand times this.

Personally, I am a proponent of death penalty in a sense that I see it as a moral and fitting punishment for certain crimes (e.g. multiple counts of premeditated murder or rape, or torture killing). However, the possibility that an innocent person might be executed makes it completely non-viable to me.

Interestingly enough, Jews had that same argument ages ago regarding the various applications of death penalty prescribed in Torah (for adultery, murder etc). And, millennia ago, they have arrived to the same conclusion: it's far more damning to execute an innocent person than it is to let the criminal walk. And so unless there is absolute, unwavering certainty that a given person is guilty - and no-one can be absolutely certain in that, since even our own senses can betray us sometimes - the only moral choice is to completely abstain from the practice.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Firethorn]

The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people.

Different thought processes indeed. Murderers kill innocent people. The state imposing a guilty sentence on an innocent is a tragic accident; not a murder. Of course, while I view an improperly executed person to be a tragedy, I also view locking them up for life an equal tragedy. Different point of view.

In any group of convicted murderers, there are going to be some people who are innocent. That's just a fact. People (juries) make mistakes.

A group could be as few as two. So no, I don't think that 'any group' of convicted murderers is guaranteed to have an innocent in there. Yes, mistakes happen. My point would be that we need to work to reform our court system to be better at coming to a correct decision. To the point that I'm not wedded to the idea of a traditional jury trial, heck, judicial panel or a 'trial' in the traditional sense at all. Coming up with something better would be a good trick, of course. Nobel prize type material.

So some number of people you put to death are going to be innocent. It might be one in a hundred or one in ten thousand, but they are going to be there regardless of your degree of diligence. And when 15 years later, when new evidence comes to light as it seems to with alarmingly frequency, you can't just let them out of jail with an apology.

I'm sure there's quite a list of innocent people who died in prison without having been convicted of a capital crime. And even then 'just let them out of jail with an apology' is a horrible thing to do. We don't even do that with actual convicts - they need assistance to reintigrate back into society, guilty or innocent, at that point. I remember a case in Texas where a man served over 40 years of his life sentence before it was discovered that he was innocent of the rape he was convicted of.

Whenever I talk to pro-death penalty people, I ask them if they would still support the death penalty if they or one of their loved ones was one of those one in a thousand cases where an innocent person was wrongly convicted, I have yet to hear a convincing 'yes'.

Well, it'd be lower odds than winning the lottery, but I have to say 'Yes'. Oddly enough, they have better odds of getting out of prison when the truth is found due to the higher standards. Getting the state to let out somebody proven innocent after conviction can be a decades long process; in Texas people have died before being let out.

Are you so strong in your belief of the value of capitol punishment that you would be willing to die to support it? Would you stand outside the prison when your child was executed with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard', when you knew they were only guilty of not having a good alibi and a good lawyer?

1. There's a lot of things I'm willing to die for; if I'm one of the extremely rare mistakes, so be it. Remember, I only support the DP in cases of mass murderers(more than 2 killed), or deliberate torture in addition to. That's a higher standard of evidence required right there.
2. Uh... I'm not crazy enough to stand outside the prison and hold up such a sign even for somebody I believe is guilty; much less 'require' somebody to do so for a relative they believe to be innocent. You can darn well believe that I'd be on the phone with the governor presenting my evidence of their innocence to get them to issues a stay/pardon. I'd be providing money to GET a good lawyer during the trial. Hell, I'm supportive of the idea of forcing governments to fund their defense office at least as much as they fund their prosecutor's office, and that's NOT limited to death penalty cases.

Just because I support the DP on a statistical basis doesn't mean that I'm totally hea

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[TiggertheMad]

I usually skip this argument, as it is so hard to prove conclusively what the effect is on the overall murder statistic. On one hand, there doesn't seem to be a substantial decrease in murders occurring as a result of capitol punishment. On the other, we don't really have any strong evidence that there isn't a very slight decrease as a small percentage of potential murders are deterred. It is clear that there isn't a huge impact, but the question then becomes something like, what is the decrease that is acceptable for the added costs incurred, financially and morally by using capitol punishment? Is saving 10 lives a year worth it?

I think this question is a lot less clear cut than you think, and you are correct I am deliberately choosing to ignore it. I agree with you, but it is much harder to honestly debate than the points I made.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Asic Eng]

is the death penalty a deterrent against murder?

Yes, and of course prison is a deterrent for murders, too. However people commit murders anyway. That's to be expected, so you need to measure statistically whether the death penalty deters more people. Which is very difficult to measure, since all sorts of factors could affect murder rates. However looking at US states, there is no indication that the death penalty helps with that: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[nospam007]

" Mostly we just see circumstantial stories about somebodies innocence."

There are 140 of them.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.
California taxpayers pay $90,000 _more_ per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Asic Eng]

I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low.

The Colombia University Law School has done a study, which suggests the error rates are high: http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman_final.pdf

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[hey!]

but I imagine the numbers will be very low.

On what basis to do you imagine that? Why is it that in this country, where we assume the government can't do anything right, somehow we assume it is near *perfect* when it comes to condemning people to death?

If it turned out to be one in a hundred, then we would need to take a serious look at the processes involved. However, I have no problem with an error rate of one in ten thousand death penalty convictions being wrong.

Alright, how did you decide that 1/100 is unacceptable, but 1/10000 is? Do you have a rational basis for where you draw the line, or are you going by your gut feeling? If you are going by your gut feeling, what makes you think that's a reasonable basis for deciding to execute somebody?

There are two common styles of ethical reasoning you can use to approach a question like this.There is utilitarian reasoning, which maximizes the public good. At least under utilitarian reasoning at least you *could* come up with a conclusion that 1/100 errors is unacceptable but 1/10000 is, but you'd have to have to identify some approximately measurable good which you can set against the costs of executing an innocent man. You can't appeal to "justice", because that belongs to a *different* style of ethical reasoning: deontological ethics, which deals in rights and obligations. In that case it doesn't matter of the innocent defendant is 1/100 or 1/10000, his rights cannot be violated unless you can show that *not* executing him violates somebody else's superior right.

In either case your feeling good or bad, satisfied or dissatisfied about executions has no bearing on the morality of capital punishment.

This little strawman is always a fun one. Let me turn it around on you. If I knew for a fact that my child committed a crime that merited the death penalty, heck, even if I am the one who turned him in, I still wouldn't stand outside the prison with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard.'

I'll go out on a limb here and guess you don't actually have any children.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[uniquename72]

The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people.

As an innocent person, I would much rather be killed outright than live my life -- or even a few years -- in prison. There is no comparison. Death is a release from pain. Being kept in a cage is constant pain.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[mr.mctibbs]

"we should have faith..." that the justice system works? And your signature talks about Orwell being an optimist. I'm positively flummoxed. Look here if you'd like some information about those "low numbers" of innocents: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[vux984]

The question you are ignoring is, is the death penalty a deterrent against murder? If it's not a deterrent, then you've made your point. If it is a deterrent, then by refusing to execute, how many random innocent people have you sentenced to a grisly brutal death?

The real question is whether flaying and vivisection are a deterrent against murder. If it is a deterrent then by refusing to flay and vivisect how many random innocent people have you sentenced to a grisly brutal death?

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[JamesP]

So what it should be done (for a start) is simple. Never allow the death penalty for a first conviction.

Chance of a wrong conviction: p (suppose it's 5%, so 0.05)
Chance of 2 wrong convictions: p^2 -> 0.0025 or 0.25%

(It's more complicated than that really, because of Bayes and other - real world - factors)

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Obfuscant]

... it is also that you are murdering innocent people.

The person being executed is the one who has murdered innocent people. I know, you are referring to the state with your comment. However, the definitions say otherwise. "Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." Since by definition it isn't murder, then your claim is inflammatory. Killing, yes, murder, no. But this inflammatory use of terminology is a minor point that can be ignored once we understand you are doing it purposefully.

In any group of convicted murderers, there are going to be some people who are innocent.

Also wrong, under current jurisprudence. "Considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Now, this point does have some merit, in that you are assuming that all people found guilty of murder in a court of law would be executed and there may be some mistakes in some cases. However, the person you are replying to has already made execution depend on the circumstances of the murder, and "amount of physical evidence" and "statements of the accused" would most certainly be part of the conditions.

In other words, you are arguing against all death penalty uses based on current usage, and the OP is arguing for it based on a different usage with stricter limits. "You can't do it at all because sometimes you do it wrong" is not a valid argument; "sometimes we do it wrong, so let's fix the errors" is.

Whenever I talk to pro-death penalty people, I ask them if they would still support the death penalty if they or one of their loved ones was one of those one in a thousand cases where an innocent person was wrongly convicted,

If one of my "loved ones" had been found guilty of murdering half a dozen people based on irrefutable physical evidence, had admitted to doing so, and showed zero remorse, I would probably still have an emotional hesitancy to execution, but the law is not emotional nor is it supposed to be. "Don't execute him because I love him" is a bit lacking in sufficiency when there were probably people who loved the half a dozen people he killed, too.

And the short answer to your question would be "yes". I would still support the death penalty in general.

Would you stand outside the prison when your child was executed with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard',

Of course not, and that's a stupid and insulting question. You can support the death penalty without having to stand outside any prision with any sign. I've never held such a sign, for example. Are you saying you question my honesty because I have not?

when you knew they were only guilty of not having a good alibi and a good lawyer?

When that was the sole basis of the conviction, then the conditions that the OP to whom you replied would not be met, and the person would not be sentenced to death.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Holladon]

I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low.

Other commenter already said that. The important point, which you seem to have missed, is that "low" isn't zero. That means that, in a country with the death penalty, a non-zero number of people is being MURDERED by the state. You're either okay with that or you aren't. It's not a question of deterrents or sliding scales or whatever -- those are pragmatic questions that you get to AFTER you answer the critical question: are you okay with the state being in the business of murdering innocent people? Is there any situation, I don't care what, in which you are morally and ethically comfortable with your country institutionally, intentionally, legally MURDERING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS? This is a yes or no question. After you answer it, then we can talk about all the reasons you think it's justified, or what you think (based on, presumably, actual evidence you can provide?) the likelihood is of it happening.

However, I have no problem with an error rate of one in ten thousand death penalty convictions being wrong.

I'm guessing you've never talked to a person on death row, or someone being tried for a crime whose punishment might include the death penalty. Have you ever had a conversation with a young person facing his or her own mortality? Have you ever spoken with a terminally ill person who's afraid of death? What if you personally had to execute the person in question? What if you found out the next day that you had murdered an innocent person? Have you actually really sat down and thought about this?

Perhaps you have. Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit here. I have difficulty imagining how a decent human being with an ounce of empathy could seriously take such a dim and dismissive view of other people's lives, and so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and hoping/assuming you think this just because you haven't really invested the emotional energy to fully comprehend the horror of what you just said.

but we should have faith that the innocent people will be weeded out eventually.

The same kind of faith we should have that the government won't violate our other rights?

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Rich0]

While your argument has some merit, I'd hardly say that sticking people in jail for 15 years and then saying, "oops, got it wrong, good luck getting a job now" is a lot better than just killing them. Somewhat better, sure.

When it comes to the problems with our justice system, it seems to me like the death penalty is the least of our problems. It is symbolic in some sense, and obviously it really does kill people, but far more lives are ruined by other problems with the system - probably more people die from suicides as a result of miscarriages of justice than from lethal injection.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[green1]

In general I actually approve of the idea of a death penalty. However I do have some major concerns on the practical side of things, and the lack of a 100% reliable justice system is prime among them.

However, as to your point. Locations with the death penalty in general have a higher murder rate than locations without it. Now this is correlation and not necessarily proof of a lack of deterrent, however it does imply that the deterrent factor is not working as intended.
Beyond that, when it comes to deterrents, studies have shown that the severity of the punishment has a very low impact, however the perceived likelihood of being caught has a substantial impact.

Basically people don't murder because they think they'll only get life in prison instead of the death penalty. They murder because they think they'll get away with it. If they thought they'd be caught, they probably wouldn't do it, even if the penalty for murder was ridiculously low. Unfortunately it is difficult to increase that perception of the risk of being caught because human nature is to think that you are better than average, and therefore if anyone can get away with it, you will. (statistically the success rate on murder investigations says otherwise, but humans are not rational enough to factor that in)

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

The problem is that every sane way of measuring the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent time and time again tells us it doesn't work. In fact states with the death penalty tend to consistently have higher incidents of capital crimes. If you're executing innocent people as has been proven time and time again by the Innocents Project, if you have prosecutors short circuiting justice to improve their prosecution record for their budding political career, if the death penalty doesn't stop murders and if it is being unfairly applied against the poor and ethnic minorities and mentally ill, then on what basis can you possibly condone socially sanctioned murder?

Retribution is an ugly game for society to be playing. In the end, it makes us no better than those we execute.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

Go to the Innocents Project, it hasn't just happened. It happen a lot.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

Excuse me, but up until recently it was virtually impossible to get a person off of death row. It was the work of groups like the Innocence Project that has made it possible for people on death row to get one last chance of getting justice. What the project has discovered is a shocking number of instances of prosecutorial misconduct including the hiding or destruction of exculpation evidence that would have exonerated innocent men from going to death row. A number of states who are concerned that they'll have to deal with the embarrassment and legal cost of wrongful prosecution have stonewalled the project and fought hard against the retesting of tried death row inmates using modern DNA technology. This is not a demonstration of a system that works, it is in fact an indictment of a system that is failing miserably. If you would have bothered to even do the simplest of searches before sharing your opinion, you'd know that since 1970 over 140 people have been released from death row due to irrefutable evidence of their innocence and with new DNA technology that number is accelerating, Since then over 1200 people have been executed and of those we now know a number of these people were innocent. Those released later spent an average of nearly 10 years in prison and now Texas has put an express lane in (to quote Ron White) to solve that problem, but it still leaves us with killing more innocent people. I would argue strongly the system in not functional and if you can't be even reasonably certain that the guy on death row did it, you shouldn't be executing him, no matter how good it is for the Prosecutor's career.

The straw man arguments doesn't change the fact anything. You can't go around spouting self acknowledged uninformed opinions that are clearly disputed by mountains of fact and expect to persuade anybody who has even the vaguest ability to make choices based on simple logic.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

Its way worse than this. Murder trials generate huge public emotion. There is a tremendous pressure to find a guilty party and make them pay. There are also tremendous political incentives here. Win a big case, become Governor someday on a "Hard on Crime" plank, and you best believe the people who prosecute know on what side their bread is buttered. Put them all away and let God sort out the innocent.

Prosecutors have been discovered falsifying evidence, tampering with witnesses, hiding exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the defendant, in short doing every dirty deed under the sun to win a high profile case and maybe be politically set for life. As long as our system of justice is more interested in winning than in finding justice we can expect innocent men going to prison in general and death row specifically.

Under these conditions the Death Penalty isn't a viable social expression. I'll be honest and say, there are mad dogs out there. There are sociopaths and psychopaths and child rapists. By all means drop them in a hole with no bottom. Make them work 100 hr. weeks of hard labor to pay for their prison time, and make restitution to their victims. You just don't need to kill them. We do not become better people by practicing the atrocities of or worst citizens. Taking life is not our place. Prison is punishment for the evil, and incarceration for the incorrigible. We can teach and train most to lead meaningful lives. We currently are more interested in vengeance as a society and it shows in our general behavior. Its perhaps time we started exercising some of those Christian ethics both inside and outside of our prisons.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

Friend, the average stay on death row is solitary confinement for about 20 years. Some have been on death raw far longer. So its not either or, its both. Worse, at least in Gen Pop, there's a hope for making human contact. In solitary, you see nobody. You talk to nobody. You have nothing to do, nothing to pass the time save the repetition of the horror that you are going to spend 20 long years by yourself and then someone is going to inject you with poison, all for a crime you didn't commit. I don't know. That sound pretty uncivilized to me.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

Stop arguing the point on intangibles and deal with the facts. Since 1970 over 10% of the people on death row have been released upon discovery of their innocence through recent advances like DNA. That would suggest we've been killing innocent people for a long time and there is in fact excellent evidence to support that finding. That's not some fly in the ointment, that a full blown failure of the system. Until we have a system that fails to reward wrongful conviction equally with rightful conviction, and prosecutors have to deal with the political pressure of high profile cases, justice is a crap shoot, and its the poor who lose.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Genda]

Again this absolute certainly without even a popcorn fart of evidence to back it up. Murder for the most part is an act of hot blood. Its a passionate thing based on fear or anger or jealousy or revenge. The part of the brain at work isn't making careful plans. This is an idiot and his homies gunning down a competing gang member in retaliation for an earlier drive by and as a byproduct they also gun down a half dozen innocent bystanders.

If you think for a moment they give a second thought to death penalty. These are guys dealing in day to day life threatening violence, the idea that an event 20 years away would have any weight in the way they think is simply ludicrous. Perhaps the death penalty deters homicidal actuaries, or vengeful logicians, but the rest of society is pretty much unable to make plans long term enough to include the consequences of managing 10 pounds let alone how their lives would be impacted by a death sentence.

People don't kill because its wrong. People who do kill, do so because their ability to manage their emotional state has been exceeded and therefore making logical choices is no longer possible. For the serial killers, and sociopaths, and psychopaths, you want to execute them, I don't agree, but if you can prove them guilty with absolute certainty, then I guess those special cases might be an exception. I'm just saying as long as the current system is so deeply buggered you advocate serious darkness without much solid logical ground to stand on.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[AliasMarlowe]

I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low.

The Colombia University Law School has done a study, which suggests the error rates are high: http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman_final.pdf

For those interested in additional details, the appendices to that report (mostly tables of data and lists of cases) are in a separate document, viewable here.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Jedi Alec]

In the U.S.A. the determination of guilt or innocence takes place by a jury of one's "peers".

What are the odds they get it right every time? Astronomical doesn't even begin to cover it.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Lucky_Norseman]

Prosecutors have been discovered falsifying evidence, tampering with witnesses, hiding exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the defendant, in short doing every dirty deed under the sun to win a high profile case and maybe be politically set for life. As long as our system of justice is more interested in winning than in finding justice we can expect innocent men going to prison in general and death row specifically.

Doing this should be legally considered premeditated murder (attempted murder if the victim is not convicted or gets out before getting executed) and should as a rule have a mandatory death sentence for the prosecutor.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[ebvwfbw]

The question you are ignoring is, is the death penalty a deterrent against murder? If it's not a deterrent, then you've made your point. If it is a deterrent, then by refusing to execute, how many random innocent people have you sentenced to a grisly brutal death?

The answer is yes. I know some people who have looked into this in detail. For Baltimore MD, there is Baltimore the city and Baltimore the county. The City has no DP, the county does. It's amazing how the crime seems to follow that political line on the land. There is no other theory as to why that would be. Not even (a BS argument like) the race card can explain it.

The way they do it today isn't right, however. Reserve it for people that there is no doubt they are guilty. I mean there just is no way. Have a public execution like they used to. A public hanging. Drives this home to people. Our whole society would be way better off.

Anti-DP == pro stupid. Lots of stupid people out there.

Jeff Dahmers last will: Gut him, cut up about 50 lbs of carrots, potatoes, onions, add about 20 gallons of water. Bake at 350 for 12 hours. Serve with red wine.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Cajun Hell]

My that line of reasoning, imprisonment is wrong too. Pretty much the only form of punishment which might not be immoral, would be fines, since interest was invented as a way of formally "undoing" past transfers of money. But even that requires some faith that interest (and some arbitrary rate) correctly models the equivalent of retroactively un-transferring money.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[Firethorn]

Oh yeah, and 140 out of how many over the time period? That's the true measure.

Re:Pro death == pro stupid

[bonehead]

Wrongful imprisonment for 10 or even 15 years is not on the same level as ending their life.

Spoken like a man who's never been locked up.

Although, I guess you are right, in a way. It's not on the same level. It's worse.

Bad supporting argument.

[TiggertheMad]

Obviously as there are zero murders in any country that has the death penalty. Of course a law will stop anyone from doing anything illegal. Oh wait...

While I am in agreement with your point of view, this is a weak argument against the death penalty. You could also make the same claim about how prison sentences have not effectively deterred common theft to the point of non-occurrence, and therefore should be abolished. (Reductio ad absurdum argument)

1st Amendment violated by judge

[realsilly]

IANAL; however, I see this take down order as a direct violation of her freedom of speech. It's that same speech in which she incriminates herself, so in essence, the judge is ordering her to destroy evidence.

Regardless of how offended the victims of her DUI are, and regardless of her flippant remark, there is still a restriction of her freedom of speech.

Was she in poor taste? ABSOLUTELY. But at most, I think it would have sufficed to have her remove the offending post, not the complete account. What is to stop her from creating a brand new account and re-posting after she's served her time? Nothing.

Frankly, I find crap like that offensive, but the other key thing to remember is that people don't have to go to her Facebook page. It's the same argument for TV, if you don't want to be offended, don't watch stuff that can offend you.

Facebook is freedom of speech?

[dutchwhizzman]

There are a bazillion other ways you can exercise your freedom of speech other than posting on Facebook. Could you please give arguments why denying someone to use Facebook and not censoring them any other way would be a violation of freedom of speech?

Deleting an entire profile may be excessive, but being ordered to at least delete any reference to a crime so the victims will not be constantly reminded sounds like a valid thing to demand by a judge.

Re:Facebook is freedom of speech?

[Rich0]

Why would the victims even be looking at their facebook page? The fact that the guy is walking around on the streets is probably more than enough of a reminder of what they did, but we can't just kill anybody who reminds us of something bad.

Nope

[assertation]

The government can't even get Facebook to completely delete your account when you ask to them deleted.

Straw man yes, but answer the question

[TiggertheMad]

This little straw man is always a fun one. Let me turn it around on you. If I knew for a fact that my child committed a crime that merited the death penalty, heck, even if I am the one who turned him in, I still wouldn't stand outside the prison with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard.'

You still didn't answer the underlying question. Would you be willing to die for a murder you didn't commit?

Re:Straw man yes, but answer the question

[Firethorn]

Would you be willing to die for a murder you didn't commit?

Are you accepting that legitimate or not, I'd be fighting as hard as I could to get the least sentence possible? That I support something on a statistical basis doesn't mean that I wouldn't try to beat the statistics. Remember, I consider a 'life in prison w/o parole' to be equivalent to death. If I'm not exonerated within the first 5, I'm unlikely to be exonerated at all, especially if I'm not sentenced to death.

On the other hand, I'm far, far, more likely to end up murdered than on trial for a murder I don't commit. I'd call that 'dying for a murder I didn't commit'. As such, I'd like to concentrate more on policies that reduce the murder rate, not 'improve' punishment of the murderers. I'd rather they not become murderers at all. Fix the schools, fix the home life, provide appropriate counseling, fix the culture.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

[EverlastingPhelps]

Setting aside all the off-topic death penalty trolling, this seems like open and shut prior restraint.

Deactivation vs. deletion

[anasciiman]

She could have deactivated the account which, at least for 30 days, would've probably satisfied the judge/idiot.

Re:What about offending Islamic people with movies

[shentino]

Simple.

First of all, the producer of the movie wasn't the one that pulled the trigger.

Second, wasn't there something about a terrorist plot already in the making and perhaps the terrorists used the movie as a convenient excuse?

England vs America

[Taco Cowboy]

The recent shooting death of two unarmed police women only serves to deepen the image of Britain as a nation of good for nothing pussies

While the House of Lords (they still have the gumption to continue call themselves "lords") debates on, the victims continue to be victimized, while the bullies ... there's no justice left in UK

Reductio ad absurdum

[niftymitch]

This may be the best place to reduce this to some
absurd level.

First off I am of the opinion that the Judge has overreached at
a number of levels.

    * free speech,
She might be in contempt of court but her right to free speech is
not within the reach of his court. i.e. the constitutional issue is
bigger than his court. I am not an attorney but I would assert(
that contempt of court has specified consequences under the law).
Fines, jail time, printed retractions and apologies come to mind.

  * deletion is forever
His order to delete might be overruled but in the world of computers
deletion is forever. Since his ruling contains irreversible actions it
is beyond review and for that reason that is not within the reach of his
court. This is in part why capital punishment rulings have mandated reviews.
He is denying higher courts the ability to act in review... and that
is an overreach.

  * Facebook incorporated in Delaware
His order has implications on a Delaware corporation to carry
out the deletion click that he ordered. His court does not
cross state borders (or national ones). An employee managing
a backup archive in a cave in Switzerland may be enjoined to
act on the deletion by Swiss law or contract law...

Now for the absurd bit... Let us look at this ruling and take it
to the Supreme court. I believe he is overreaching to the point
of contempt on the rights of this individual. His blanket deletion
of the account is too close to an ruling that finds him in
contempt of her rights and ruled that all his writing and rulings in the court
he now sits be "deleted" his name on the door, his records in
payroll, his retirement, his diploma on his office wall and all the contents
of his "Office", all his ruling in previous (and future) cases.

What this girl said/ posted six months before the infraction
is not an issue in front of the court, nor is what she will say
(good or bad) in the future. Deleting her history and future
on Facebook is an overreach. Ignore Dr. Who for now.

This is like the New York Times writing something that the court
does not like. The courts knows that it cannot delete the
NYT full history and it knows that it cannot kill its future by
mandating that all copies of the NYT be destroyed and the
existence of the NYT be dissolved. It can fine, it can demand
a retraction, it can jail individuals.... But not delete the NYT.
Or can it... under the new paranoia rules?

In Kentucky... cast the net wider.

[Anonymous Coward]

26A.080 Judicial officer to report unprofessional conduct of justice, judge, or
attorney.
When it comes to the attention of any judicial officer that any justice or judge of the
Court of Justice or any attorney may have been guilty of unprofessional conduct, he shall
at once report the matter to the proper investigating and disciplinary authorities.
History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 18, sec. 1.

It seems strange to me...

[DirtyLiar]

...that a comment on a social website about an incident that didn't put you in jail, would land you in jail, and get you banned from the website.

I mean if the crime wasn't serious enough to put you behind bars, how in the world could a comment about it be? Especially one that was self-mocking and basically said; "I'm such a dumb bass! LOL!".

It might be rude, it might tasteless, it might even be highly offensive. But if those are crimes, out prisons should be a LOT fuller

In other countries there are prohibitions against hate speech, speech against the government, and / or just downright rude speech (In Germany you can be arrested for just gesturing at a driver, let alone yelling at him, because it's considered distracting). But we supposedly cherish free speech, and are willing to tolerate it's drawbacks in order to derive it's benefits. If we can't arrest that jackass who recently released that anti-Islamic video for criminal negligence or inciting a riot in association with the very foreseeable deaths and property damages resulting from it's release, then what business do we have jailing someone for offensive speech that harmed no one?

Rights

[Mailandsms]

Our rights are stooped there others rights are begins...

Shades of some color...

[Firethorn]

On what basis to do you imagine that? Why is it that in this country, where we assume the government can't do anything right, somehow we assume it is near *perfect* when it comes to condemning people to death?

That's why juries are involved. Still, I agree with you somewhat; which is why I proposed a higher standard for the Death Penalty - in general 2nd degree(no to 20 premediation, provoked, mutual combat) would be up to 20 years. 1st degree would be pre-meditated. 0th degree, DP eligible, would require 3 or more murders and/or 'deliberate torture' to be involved. A bit of a higher standard.

Also, while it might not be 'right', in general those who end up in court aren't innocent. To bring up a fictional example, it's like the Batman helping the Joker to beat a murder rap - because he was actually innocent of *that* murder. Given the Joker's record in the comics, that's a bit like exonerating Saddam of 1 murder - you still have a few thousand to hang on him.

I've called my support for the DP the 'Joker Rule' before; it's for people who are 'just that dangerous'. I'd call it the "Anders Breivik" rule, but in containment the dude isn't as dangerous as many of the gangbangers here in the states. Of course, when I go 'evil overlord' I worry less about guilt than actual danger - a gangbanger thug might end up executed for being dangerous and 'not worth it to society' for being caught with drugs, while a doctor who murdered his cheating wife might actually see the light of day again.

Alright, how did you decide that 1/100 is unacceptable, but 1/10000 is? Do you have a rational basis for where you draw the line, or are you going by your gut feeling? If you are going by your gut feeling, what makes you think that's a reasonable basis for deciding to execute somebody?

My standard would be finding the best 'life saving' zone. Note, this would be for the trials themselves. You'd have to look at how likely an unconvicted murderer is to kill again, how public perception works for murders, etc... Note: DP is a sentence, not a trial. I don't have enough data, but I figure it's probably closer to the 1/100 rate, as to get to 1/1000 for false convictions you'd have to let an awful lot of real murderers go. It's still within the old 'better to let 10 guilty free...' saying.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess you don't actually have any children.

He might. Parents have turned their kids in for crimes before, sometimes extremely serious ones. That doesn't mean that, even if they witnessed a crime, that they're going to be standing outside the prison with a 'fry the bastard' sign. I know of parents who'd turn their kid in, then sit there 'being supportive' as they put the death drugs in his arm.

Murderers aren't put in 'regular confinement'.

[Firethorn]

California taxpayers pay $90,000 _more_ per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

Addressed this in my first post - Inmates that are sentenced to life instead of the DP are generally not put into 'regular confinement'. They're generally put into Max, which is also far more expensive. It's also a reason to study why we have a separate death row anyways. The disparity in cost wasn't always there.