There is no need to quote stole here. Fox has not only copied the video (which would justify the quotes), they have asserted ownership of the work (actual theft).
It's funny how it's primarily the entities that whine about infringement and call it theft that commit the actual thefts.
They can already go to a district court judge for that. The downside for them is that district judges tend to be more experienced and harder to slip things past.
If the plaintiffs REALLY believed that the polygraph had the ability to discern truth and lie and they REALLY believed the defendant was guilty, why wouldn't they jump on the offer?
Compensating people for wrongful imprisonment means taking money from other people. If you don't fix your legal system, you're using more than necessary of other people's money to do that; and, from a macroeconomic standpoint, you have a laborer who goes unused but who collects income, which is similar to just paying people to dig holes and fill them in again: more cost, less product, and the sum total of all consumer money (and thus any portion thereof) carries less buying power.
So you oppose compensation when an inevitable error is made? What's your alternative, kill them? Throw them to the wolves?
The "to the extent possible" qualifier is a handwave against the *enormous* social consequences of imprisonment,
No, it's a recognition that there is on;y so much that can be done given we don't have time travel.
which death-penalty opponents universally consider no big deal.
Universally? This very thread disproves that.
In fact, as I have made clear, I favor judicial and prosecutorial reform as well.
While not stated yet in this thread, I also favor prison reform. I don't see how putting someone in a screwed up environment like the current prison system and isolating them from society to the current degree is supposed to make them one day be ready to rejoin society and be a productive member. Especially when the evidence is to the contrary.
There are already judges that can give them the warrants they need. The only rational purpose of the rule change is to let them ask less experienced judges when they want to slip something past them.
Ending the death penalty is hardly the ONLY needed reform and I'm rather certain I never said otherwise. But it is a part of the problem. Stopping the state from committing negligent homicide is just one step.
Another would be actually attempting to compensate someone who was wrongly imprisoned to the extent that it's possible. Along with that (and perhaps spurred on by the extreme costs of proper compensation) prosecutorial reform and reforms in the courts to return to the idea of weighing the evidence and prosecuting the guilty. No more stacking charges with the intent to plead it down to what the prosecutor actually believes them guilty of. No more making a mockery of the right to an attorney by appointing public defenders too busy to learn the defendant's name before the first hearing. The list goes on.
None of that makes wanting society to stop killing people ridiculous.
The real problem comes in when you give the assholes free reign. Unfortunately they're not likely to be eliminated in all contexts but they can be placed at arm's length.
Since assholes stuck at the terrible-twos don't tend to produch much other than stress and resentment, organizations that don't control the problem tend to fail while their employees fling feces at each other.
Don't be confused by the term RADAR. They don't mean they stopped getting a return echo from active radar, they mean they stopped getting a transponder response. All that means for sure is that the transponder stopped working.
And in ten years when new evidence shows that someone else did it, you will happily dig them up, resurrect them and then help them get re-established in society, right?
If they only refuse to sell to a black or homosexual executioner, they are in trouble. If they categorically refuse to sell when the purpose is execution, they are within the law.
They are just refusingly to knowingly participate in an execution, just like everyone else that objects to the death penalty. Note I'm not saying they took a moral stance, it's just that from a marketing perspective, their customers won't want to take "the execution drug".
Actually, my opposition wouldn't evaporate. I object on the basis that our courts get it wrong too often and there is no way to even begin to compensate the wrongly convicted if we kill them.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need to quote stole here. Fox has not only copied the video (which would justify the quotes), they have asserted ownership of the work (actual theft).
It's funny how it's primarily the entities that whine about infringement and call it theft that commit the actual thefts.
Absolutely. We are now a fear based society. The Chicken Little of the world.
That would be reasonable.
If you know a proper way to fix that, I'm all ears.
They can already go to a district court judge for that. The downside for them is that district judges tend to be more experienced and harder to slip things past.
So did she get her math education while she was here or do you suppose she got it in Wales?
Yes, a woman from Wales.
How about saving the state before going back for any reason. Then the forward button can reload the state and you don't have to re-type anything.
That way, if any of the several other ways you might accidentally go back are also covered.
It would almost have to be total electrical failure.
If the plaintiffs REALLY believed that the polygraph had the ability to discern truth and lie and they REALLY believed the defendant was guilty, why wouldn't they jump on the offer?
And that is why I'm not interested. One manager gets a soggy bowl of cornflakes and *POOF* it's gone.
More like I don't assume zebra when I hear galloping.
Could we at least have some shred of evidence before we push the panic button (that glass is getting expensive).
Compensating people for wrongful imprisonment means taking money from other people. If you don't fix your legal system, you're using more than necessary of other people's money to do that; and, from a macroeconomic standpoint, you have a laborer who goes unused but who collects income, which is similar to just paying people to dig holes and fill them in again: more cost, less product, and the sum total of all consumer money (and thus any portion thereof) carries less buying power.
So you oppose compensation when an inevitable error is made? What's your alternative, kill them? Throw them to the wolves?
The "to the extent possible" qualifier is a handwave against the *enormous* social consequences of imprisonment,
No, it's a recognition that there is on;y so much that can be done given we don't have time travel.
which death-penalty opponents universally consider no big deal.
Universally? This very thread disproves that.
In fact, as I have made clear, I favor judicial and prosecutorial reform as well.
While not stated yet in this thread, I also favor prison reform. I don't see how putting someone in a screwed up environment like the current prison system and isolating them from society to the current degree is supposed to make them one day be ready to rejoin society and be a productive member. Especially when the evidence is to the contrary.
There are already judges that can give them the warrants they need. The only rational purpose of the rule change is to let them ask less experienced judges when they want to slip something past them.
Ending the death penalty is hardly the ONLY needed reform and I'm rather certain I never said otherwise. But it is a part of the problem. Stopping the state from committing negligent homicide is just one step.
Another would be actually attempting to compensate someone who was wrongly imprisoned to the extent that it's possible. Along with that (and perhaps spurred on by the extreme costs of proper compensation) prosecutorial reform and reforms in the courts to return to the idea of weighing the evidence and prosecuting the guilty. No more stacking charges with the intent to plead it down to what the prosecutor actually believes them guilty of. No more making a mockery of the right to an attorney by appointing public defenders too busy to learn the defendant's name before the first hearing. The list goes on.
None of that makes wanting society to stop killing people ridiculous.
The real problem comes in when you give the assholes free reign. Unfortunately they're not likely to be eliminated in all contexts but they can be placed at arm's length.
Since assholes stuck at the terrible-twos don't tend to produch much other than stress and resentment, organizations that don't control the problem tend to fail while their employees fling feces at each other.
Or a trigger set to go off when the apparent altitude reaches 8000 feet (standard cabin pressure).
Don't be confused by the term RADAR. They don't mean they stopped getting a return echo from active radar, they mean they stopped getting a transponder response. All that means for sure is that the transponder stopped working.
Unless it suffers catastrophic failure. There's no reason to assume a deliberate act at this point.
Then how did the modern drugs get used at all. I'm pretty sure they didn't use KCl and barbiturates in the old west.
Personally I oppose it because our courts haven't proven reliable enough to impose an irreversible penalty. There have been posthumous exonerations.
And in ten years when new evidence shows that someone else did it, you will happily dig them up, resurrect them and then help them get re-established in society, right?
If they only refuse to sell to a black or homosexual executioner, they are in trouble. If they categorically refuse to sell when the purpose is execution, they are within the law.
They are just refusingly to knowingly participate in an execution, just like everyone else that objects to the death penalty. Note I'm not saying they took a moral stance, it's just that from a marketing perspective, their customers won't want to take "the execution drug".
Actually, my opposition wouldn't evaporate. I object on the basis that our courts get it wrong too often and there is no way to even begin to compensate the wrongly convicted if we kill them.
Some people are basically bastards. Don't let them off the hook by claiming everyone is.