Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book.
It is not a tenet of most religions. It is a tenet of a few religions, and some of them have been very loud.
Even if it's a tenet of numerically few religions then it's not simply that those religions have been loud... So what you're really saying is that 300m of 7bn people may not have a religious scripture to adhere to... So unless you're going to pretend that you were just referring to the Koran and that the bible doesn't exist or whatever then I don't really understand where you're coming from.
Oh, but I do know where you're coming from. You're so eager to make your point that you didn't read carefully what was being written. That's not what I said at all. Read it again. Better yet, read what I was responding to. Parse it carefully. Don't read what you thought that it said, or want it to say; read what it actually does say.
Abortion, still pursued with varying vengeance at the state and federal level to deny access to it across the US
Some people are considerably more squeamish about killing "tissue" after it is born than before it can survive ex utero. Others find the whole idea abhorrent. Prove me wrong.
In court you swear to a particular diety.
Not in California. I was recently in court (jury duty), and they went out of their way to avoid it.
I don't know about specific law, but I thought that there needed to be a benefit to the liar for it to be fraud. If I started spouting lies in favor of company XYZ, but I have no stake in the company, know no employees, owners, stake holders, clients, suppliers, etc, etc, then how is it fraud?
Posting falsehoods about investments typically have some financial motive. The typical pump-and-dump scheme, for instance. Now that is fraud.
"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain... A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving the victim."
(Forewarning, posting while tired. I'm likely overlooking something, and may not be as coherent as I'd like.)
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat
Let's say that for the sake of the argument the only ones deserving the death penalty are those who kill other people.
Oversimplified, but I see no need to debate the point.
And let's discard those who have done so by accident. We just want the people who have done that on purpose.
Who kills another person on purpose? As a civilian, not employed by the government, in peace time, in self defense, not trying to prevent someone else to commit murder...
Who are the premeditated murderers?
You got two groups. Mentally deranged people and criminals.
Those are excessively large and diverse groups. Considering how "criminal" tends to be defined, it may be a tautology to split them this way, but I'll accept it for the time being.
Now... Mentally deranged people are mentally ill. THAT is the reason they commit murders.
Giving them the death penalty is basically killing people for being sick.
For those who kill only because they are mentally deranged. The distinction is a hard one to make, and I don't think it can be made in most cases. Let's say the severely mentally ill don't qualify, and move on.
Also, do you really believe that the insane person will take heed of the threat of death penalty?
Insanity isn't boolean. It isn't all or nothing. It is a continuum (in the very least). It depends on the degree of insanity. Some of them will, yes. Even if mental illness is off the table, the knowledge that death penalty is practiced on murderers will deter some of the insane. Remember, they've got a screw loose. Most of them don't want to admit that they're crazy, and the insanity defense won't always occur to them during pre-meditation. To premeditate the insanity defense, you would need to admit to yourself that you're cuckoo.
Either being with a long history of mental illness or just cracking and loosing it for a moment under the influence of stress, drugs or whatnot.
Drugs are not a good excuse. I'd need more information before I'm willing to decide if they are an excuse at all.
Snapping under stress? "Jim made me stressful, but I killed him. Now that he's gone, I'm all better. Honest!" Right... Now, there are cases of longstanding, undiagnosed mental illness. Add an unreasonable stressor, and things sometimes go from potentially dangerous, to deadly. These are two very different things. We need to be really careful about anybody we permit to take the insanity defense. It should be quite hard to get out of the psych ward after killing someone.
But again, remember, crazy isn't an absolute. We need to make an honest assessment of potential for premeditation and potential for self-restraint. Only when one of those is at an exceptionally low level (extreme clinical) should we just accept that they couldn't help themselves.
Some of them even believe that they are doing god's work and that there are really good things waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
That group is exceptionally scary. They will either attempt suicide, or they will be especially motivated to try to seem cured, to get back outside and kill again.
So, we're left with the other group - criminals.
A wide and varied group.
The kind of people who's "job description" involves "every day you may be shot and killed by police, your friends, your competition, family members and many other people not listed above".
For some of them, it's a job. For most of them, it's a hobby, or a lifestyle. Most criminals aren't "career" criminals
That's lazy thinking. I'm sorry, but it is. Those aren't "underlying problems" in the way you imply them to be. They are causal factors, sure. Those are things that make it much easier for an individual to justify making bad choices. Peer pressure, especially, makes it very, very easy to make bad choices.
Those are all things that we must address as a society to deal with crime. (You left out toxic culture from your screed. That also belongs in this list.)
But those aren't the factors that motivate most criminals. Those are all clinical excuses that they'll use (because they know part of society is sympathetic to that type of argument, and they want sympathy). Ultimately, they are motivated by greed. They want to do something that somehow hurts someone else, and they just don't care. They place their own wealth, or status, or ego above the needs of others. Criminals care about themselves. That is why deterrents work. (That our prisons don't work is a whole topic until itself.)
Yes, fear of the death penalty can deter criminals. Every rare once in a while, it does. (Even rarer is when a criminal will admit that it has.) It is still an open question just how much a deterrent it would be if used more often.
We can build oxygen sensors that raise an alarm in dangerous situations. We understand how to build ventilation systems. Emergency backup tanks are common enough with scuba and spelunking (etc). None of this is hard, nor terribly uncommon.
It's just as likely for a current worker to accidentally jab themselves with poison, and more likely in your senario that somebody else gets shot.
There are cases where criminals have admitted to being deterred by the possibility of capitol punishment. It's not common, because even most criminals are smarter than that, but it has happened.
Extremely rare capitol punishment is only a very, very mild deterrent. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
I was shooting for the "Ig Nobel" effect. You don't realize just how terrible beheading could be until you really stop and think about it. And yes, from the perspective of humor, it is a very bad joke.
Since you didn't post AC, I'll bite. As a forward, I believe in the death penalty (as it should be, not as it is), but am willing to see it discontinued for several reasons. I'm not fanatically in love with the idea.
There is a great bullshit test I came up with to give to someone who advocates capitol punishment. Ask them if our court system is 100% perfect in convicting the guilty.
There! Right there! I've already found the flaw.
We all know someone who contested a ticket in court. People get wrongly convicted all the time for drug crimes, battery, breaking and entering, etc. People are periodically convicted for murders that they don't commit. It happens.
But... Our system right now is so paranoid against executing the falsely convicted, that stays of execution are granted when there is the faintest whiff of innocence. Prisoners are kept for decades, just to avoid wrongful execution.
You equate the normal system of almost-justice with the system that permits capital punishment. They're not the same.
Then ask them if that means that means that we are murdering at least a few of the wrong people with capitol punishment.
Nope, or at least, unlikely. I'll allow for a vague possibility to continue your questionnaire.
Then ask them if they would still feel that capitol punishment was fair and just if they were one of those people that was selected to die.
I'd be very upset. I'd be raging mad at the prosecutor, and gravely disappointed with the jury. But would it be enough to turn me from capitol punishment? No.
For the sake of argument, let's say that I actually exhaust all my appeals, and that I really am innocent. For this to even be possible, I'm going to assume that capitol punishment has become significantly more commonplace than it is today (otherwise this leaves the realm of distant hypothetical, and enters that of raw fantasy).
I would then try to make my death as meaningful as possible. I'd write a memoir about my case. I'd call for prosecutors and judges to be careful, and for juries to be mindful. I'd call for capitol punishment to continue, and expound on the policies that should surround it. If I could convince just one person that murder isn't worth it, then my death would make society a better place.
I'd still be deeply unhappy about it, don't get me wrong.
I'd insist (on cruelty grounds) on choosing the method of my execution, and being monitored by a pain specializing neurologist. (There are several supposedly-humane methods that haven't been sufficiently explored.)
Then ask them if they still support capitol punishment. If they say still yes, they are lying.
Yes. Want a polygraph?
You intentionally mentioned "fair and just". These are ideals. No system run by human beings is going to be perfectly fair, or perfectly just. It just can't happen. The question, therefore, must be if the policy of capitol punishment can be sufficiently fair and just to meet the goals of society. It's a grungy idea, but it is the same for all criminal punishments. Is incarceration fair and just? Sometimes it isn't. Is it good policy? (maybe not in its current form, but yes it is).
The rack was cruel. Crucifixion was cruel. Beheading with an axe was, well, hit or miss.
You're right. Cruelty is relative. One could even make a case that incarceration for life is cruel... but that would lead to silly (and dangerous) ideas.
I'm in an odd position of believing in the death penalty, but willing to see it go.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat. As it stands, there are so few executions in most of the states that we are getting very, very little deterrence out of it. Criminals know that it doesn't happen often. If they are convicted, they don't believe they'll be given the death penalty. Their chances are statistically 0.
Further, I don't believe vengeance is a sufficient motive for the death penalty, or indeed any state punishment. If it doesn't prevent further crime in some way, the state has no business there. Incarceration physically prevents further crime... while giving prisoners a reason not to come back*... and theoretically rehabilitating them**. Possible escape and the ordering of crimes from within prison are the only other two reasons I can see for a death penalty, but these seem rather weak. High risk criminals should be in maximum security already.
*(Prison should be unpleasant. It shouldn't be as awful and dangerous as it typically is, but it shouldn't be pleasant.) **(We should offer rehabilitation, not that we do.)
The Paradox:
It is commonly said that it costs more to execute a man than to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life. I don't know if this is true or not, but it does highlight unfairness in the system.
Imagine two murderers in a death penalty state. The first is convicted with special circumstances, and is sentenced to die. The prosecutor can prove the guilt of the second prisoner, but can't quite prove special circumstances. He is convicted for life. The first is given appeal after appeal. The second can ask for an appeal, but may be denied.
Note that the state has taken the lives of both of these people. The second one is just killed slower. Either, we give death penalty cases too many appeals, or we don't give life sentence cases enough. Something is out of balance here.
(Addendum: Why don't we let death row prisoners choose? There are some interesting theories out there about humane execution. So long as the method chosen results in death, is acceptably inexpensive, can be accomplished from within the prison, and is not dangerous to others, it would be the most ethical way to kill someone. Not that it is ethical, that is still open for debate... but it would be the most ethical.)
To further illustrate your point, subdivision (b) only comes into effect on "equipment when installed in a vehicle". Since this was on her head, and not installed in a vehicle, (b) is irrelevant, as is all it's subdivisions: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (A), and (B).
The only subdivision that is relevant is (a). So, what are the important parts of (a)? Let me paraphrase for emphasis:
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if... a video monitor, or... similar... is operating and is located... at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and... is visible to the driver...
In other words, in order to be in violation of (a), the screen must be operating. If the cop can't make a case that the screen was on, there is no violation. Of course, "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is easy to say, and easily ignored...
It's not fried yet, but it is running around with it's head chopped off.
I helped a small business migrate their email to yahoo. Big mistake. Some of their engineers are smart, but the business is really hampering their effort. They haven't a clue how to deliver a decent product to a paying customer.
Investment wasnt created after the Constitution,...
True, and irrelevant. The modern idea of corporation was in its infancy, the idea of corporate person-hood was yet to be established. But what is important, was that the word "commerce" did not yet encompass investment. (unless someone can find a counter-example)
...and the idea that commerce includes investment isnt even relatively new.
Relative to what? To us today, or to the US Constitution? I beg to differ. It predates my birth, by quite a bit. In that sense, it is not new. But that is irrelevant to the intent of the signers of the Constitution.
This subthread is silly.
A point of view. Ok, we can agree that you see this subthread as silly.
The Gov isnt sticking their nose anywhere that it wasnt already. [etc]
Granted. This is relevant to the main thread, but not to my point.
Let me take a step back for a moment, and point to the Commerce Clause: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause was included to put an end to interstate trade restrictions, specifically interstate tariffs. It is intentionally written to be vague because they knew the states were bound to come up with a clever way around a narrowly tailored restriction.
Fast forward over the years, and you'll find that the federal government (especially congress, but not wholly), has used the Commerce Clause to play six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon. Everything is eventually related to the sale and transport of goods across state lines, and therefore can be regulated. This was not the original intent. Gradually folding investment into commerce, as opposed to being a related principle, only makes the extension of Federal power easier. This, also, isn't what the signers intended.
From a constitutional point of view, this is a very important topic, but not one that is likely to be dealt with at SCOTUS any time soon.
I say again, this subthread is silly and pointless.
There are many subthreads on Slashdot that are silly and pointless. I'm guessing that you're responding because this one makes you uncomfortable for some reason. That's OK. For instance, the idea that the Constitution is being flagrantly disregarded makes a lot of people uncomfortable. People often deride or reject that which is uncomfortable.
We do have absentee, to varying degrees based on state. Coercion is not (currently) a major problem with absentee voting because it is much easier to use it for ballot stuffing, or selective shredding. It's just not worth the effort that coercion requires.
Now places in the US used to have coercion problems. That's why we've got secret ballots to begin with. If it was the easiest way to influence politics, we'd re-develop that particular problem in some places (big cities, small swing states, etc).
Really? Coercion of millions of people?
Please, do tell how that's viable in any scenario in a non-communist state.
You've got your terms mixed up. Communism and Democracy can theoretically co-exit (not advocating it, nor do they tend to, but they can). What you're referring to is totalitarianism. And if you think it can't come to the US, you've got your head screwed on backwards.
You've taken the ideal of one philosophy and compared it to the weakness of the other. A counter-argument, equally bad, could be made by flipping those.
Correct. The idea that commerce includes investment is a (relatively) recent development. Investment permits commerce. Investment isn't commerce, at least as the word used to be mean.
I accept that its usage does now typically encompass investment, but that is irrelevant to a constitutional discussion. You can't change the behavior of the Constitution by redefining words. That way lies madness. One would need to demonstrate that the common usage of the word in 1787 included investment (or better yet, 18th century legalese).
The way the word is typically defined in dictionaries does not include investment, only goods and sometimes services. I'm sure you can find an exception.
On what basis do you equate all business activity with "commerce"? Technically, investment isn't commerce. It's just frequently conducted by the same sorts of organizations. Besides, the SCOTUS has clearly ruled (from time to time) that intent of written law and constitutional statue are important, and not just the literal words used.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Let's have a recap, shall we?
Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book.
It is not a tenet of most religions. It is a tenet of a few religions, and some of them have been very loud.
Even if it's a tenet of numerically few religions then it's not simply that those religions have been loud... So what you're really saying is that 300m of 7bn people may not have a religious scripture to adhere to... So unless you're going to pretend that you were just referring to the Koran and that the bible doesn't exist or whatever then I don't really understand where you're coming from.
Oh, but I do know where you're coming from. You're so eager to make your point that you didn't read carefully what was being written. That's not what I said at all. Read it again. Better yet, read what I was responding to. Parse it carefully. Don't read what you thought that it said, or want it to say; read what it actually does say.
Abortion, still pursued with varying vengeance at the state and federal level to deny access to it across the US
Some people are considerably more squeamish about killing "tissue" after it is born than before it can survive ex utero. Others find the whole idea abhorrent. Prove me wrong.
In court you swear to a particular diety.
Not in California. I was recently in court (jury duty), and they went out of their way to avoid it.
I don't know about specific law, but I thought that there needed to be a benefit to the liar for it to be fraud. If I started spouting lies in favor of company XYZ, but I have no stake in the company, know no employees, owners, stake holders, clients, suppliers, etc, etc, then how is it fraud?
Posting falsehoods about investments typically have some financial motive. The typical pump-and-dump scheme, for instance. Now that is fraud.
"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain... A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving the victim."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud (Yes, I know, a very weak source. But it shows that I'm not the only one who sees it this way.)
It was one AC responding to another AC. It might even have been the same person. It was either a troll being fed, or a political drive-by.
"Thou shalt remain ignorant of anything not printed in this book" is a tenet of most religions, and is dogmatically followed by the fervent believers.
I'm going to quibble over this point. It is not a tenet of most religions. It is a tenet of a few religions, and some of them have been very loud.
(They've also made good villains with which to smear other religionists. You've been suckered.)
Fair enough.
(Forewarning, posting while tired. I'm likely overlooking something, and may not be as coherent as I'd like.)
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat
Let's say that for the sake of the argument the only ones deserving the death penalty are those who kill other people.
Oversimplified, but I see no need to debate the point.
And let's discard those who have done so by accident. We just want the people who have done that on purpose.
Who kills another person on purpose? As a civilian, not employed by the government, in peace time, in self defense, not trying to prevent someone else to commit murder... Who are the premeditated murderers?
You got two groups. Mentally deranged people and criminals.
Those are excessively large and diverse groups. Considering how "criminal" tends to be defined, it may be a tautology to split them this way, but I'll accept it for the time being.
Now... Mentally deranged people are mentally ill. THAT is the reason they commit murders. Giving them the death penalty is basically killing people for being sick.
For those who kill only because they are mentally deranged. The distinction is a hard one to make, and I don't think it can be made in most cases. Let's say the severely mentally ill don't qualify, and move on.
Also, do you really believe that the insane person will take heed of the threat of death penalty?
Insanity isn't boolean. It isn't all or nothing. It is a continuum (in the very least). It depends on the degree of insanity. Some of them will, yes. Even if mental illness is off the table, the knowledge that death penalty is practiced on murderers will deter some of the insane. Remember, they've got a screw loose. Most of them don't want to admit that they're crazy, and the insanity defense won't always occur to them during pre-meditation. To premeditate the insanity defense, you would need to admit to yourself that you're cuckoo.
Either being with a long history of mental illness or just cracking and loosing it for a moment under the influence of stress, drugs or whatnot.
Drugs are not a good excuse. I'd need more information before I'm willing to decide if they are an excuse at all.
Snapping under stress? "Jim made me stressful, but I killed him. Now that he's gone, I'm all better. Honest!" Right... Now, there are cases of longstanding, undiagnosed mental illness. Add an unreasonable stressor, and things sometimes go from potentially dangerous, to deadly. These are two very different things. We need to be really careful about anybody we permit to take the insanity defense. It should be quite hard to get out of the psych ward after killing someone.
But again, remember, crazy isn't an absolute. We need to make an honest assessment of potential for premeditation and potential for self-restraint. Only when one of those is at an exceptionally low level (extreme clinical) should we just accept that they couldn't help themselves.
Some of them even believe that they are doing god's work and that there are really good things waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
That group is exceptionally scary. They will either attempt suicide, or they will be especially motivated to try to seem cured, to get back outside and kill again.
So, we're left with the other group - criminals.
A wide and varied group.
The kind of people who's "job description" involves "every day you may be shot and killed by police, your friends, your competition, family members and many other people not listed above".
For some of them, it's a job. For most of them, it's a hobby, or a lifestyle. Most criminals aren't "career" criminals
That's lazy thinking. I'm sorry, but it is. Those aren't "underlying problems" in the way you imply them to be. They are causal factors, sure. Those are things that make it much easier for an individual to justify making bad choices. Peer pressure, especially, makes it very, very easy to make bad choices.
Those are all things that we must address as a society to deal with crime. (You left out toxic culture from your screed. That also belongs in this list.)
But those aren't the factors that motivate most criminals. Those are all clinical excuses that they'll use (because they know part of society is sympathetic to that type of argument, and they want sympathy). Ultimately, they are motivated by greed. They want to do something that somehow hurts someone else, and they just don't care. They place their own wealth, or status, or ego above the needs of others. Criminals care about themselves. That is why deterrents work. (That our prisons don't work is a whole topic until itself.)
Yes, fear of the death penalty can deter criminals. Every rare once in a while, it does. (Even rarer is when a criminal will admit that it has.) It is still an open question just how much a deterrent it would be if used more often.
Oh, please.
We can build oxygen sensors that raise an alarm in dangerous situations. We understand how to build ventilation systems. Emergency backup tanks are common enough with scuba and spelunking (etc). None of this is hard, nor terribly uncommon.
It's just as likely for a current worker to accidentally jab themselves with poison, and more likely in your senario that somebody else gets shot.
That's ONE of the things that it is about.
If we're going to have a death penalty, we've really got to get away from vengeance masquerading as "justice". It's just not acceptable.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
There's no base case... IT'S A TRAP!
Parent is AC, but still has a point. We have far less barbaric means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy than fetacide.
There are cases where criminals have admitted to being deterred by the possibility of capitol punishment. It's not common, because even most criminals are smarter than that, but it has happened.
Extremely rare capitol punishment is only a very, very mild deterrent. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
I was shooting for the "Ig Nobel" effect. You don't realize just how terrible beheading could be until you really stop and think about it. And yes, from the perspective of humor, it is a very bad joke.
Since you didn't post AC, I'll bite. As a forward, I believe in the death penalty (as it should be, not as it is), but am willing to see it discontinued for several reasons. I'm not fanatically in love with the idea.
There is a great bullshit test I came up with to give to someone who advocates capitol punishment. Ask them if our court system is 100% perfect in convicting the guilty.
There! Right there! I've already found the flaw.
We all know someone who contested a ticket in court. People get wrongly convicted all the time for drug crimes, battery, breaking and entering, etc. People are periodically convicted for murders that they don't commit. It happens.
But... Our system right now is so paranoid against executing the falsely convicted, that stays of execution are granted when there is the faintest whiff of innocence. Prisoners are kept for decades, just to avoid wrongful execution.
You equate the normal system of almost-justice with the system that permits capital punishment. They're not the same.
Then ask them if that means that means that we are murdering at least a few of the wrong people with capitol punishment.
Nope, or at least, unlikely. I'll allow for a vague possibility to continue your questionnaire.
Then ask them if they would still feel that capitol punishment was fair and just if they were one of those people that was selected to die.
I'd be very upset. I'd be raging mad at the prosecutor, and gravely disappointed with the jury. But would it be enough to turn me from capitol punishment? No.
For the sake of argument, let's say that I actually exhaust all my appeals, and that I really am innocent. For this to even be possible, I'm going to assume that capitol punishment has become significantly more commonplace than it is today (otherwise this leaves the realm of distant hypothetical, and enters that of raw fantasy).
I would then try to make my death as meaningful as possible. I'd write a memoir about my case. I'd call for prosecutors and judges to be careful, and for juries to be mindful. I'd call for capitol punishment to continue, and expound on the policies that should surround it. If I could convince just one person that murder isn't worth it, then my death would make society a better place.
I'd still be deeply unhappy about it, don't get me wrong.
I'd insist (on cruelty grounds) on choosing the method of my execution, and being monitored by a pain specializing neurologist. (There are several supposedly-humane methods that haven't been sufficiently explored.)
Then ask them if they still support capitol punishment. If they say still yes, they are lying.
Yes. Want a polygraph?
You intentionally mentioned "fair and just". These are ideals. No system run by human beings is going to be perfectly fair, or perfectly just. It just can't happen. The question, therefore, must be if the policy of capitol punishment can be sufficiently fair and just to meet the goals of society. It's a grungy idea, but it is the same for all criminal punishments. Is incarceration fair and just? Sometimes it isn't. Is it good policy? (maybe not in its current form, but yes it is).
The rack was cruel. Crucifixion was cruel. Beheading with an axe was, well, hit or miss.
You're right. Cruelty is relative. One could even make a case that incarceration for life is cruel... but that would lead to silly (and dangerous) ideas.
I'm in an odd position of believing in the death penalty, but willing to see it go.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat. As it stands, there are so few executions in most of the states that we are getting very, very little deterrence out of it. Criminals know that it doesn't happen often. If they are convicted, they don't believe they'll be given the death penalty. Their chances are statistically 0.
Further, I don't believe vengeance is a sufficient motive for the death penalty, or indeed any state punishment. If it doesn't prevent further crime in some way, the state has no business there. Incarceration physically prevents further crime... while giving prisoners a reason not to come back*... and theoretically rehabilitating them**. Possible escape and the ordering of crimes from within prison are the only other two reasons I can see for a death penalty, but these seem rather weak. High risk criminals should be in maximum security already.
*(Prison should be unpleasant. It shouldn't be as awful and dangerous as it typically is, but it shouldn't be pleasant.) **(We should offer rehabilitation, not that we do.)
The Paradox:
It is commonly said that it costs more to execute a man than to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life. I don't know if this is true or not, but it does highlight unfairness in the system.
Imagine two murderers in a death penalty state. The first is convicted with special circumstances, and is sentenced to die. The prosecutor can prove the guilt of the second prisoner, but can't quite prove special circumstances. He is convicted for life. The first is given appeal after appeal. The second can ask for an appeal, but may be denied.
Note that the state has taken the lives of both of these people. The second one is just killed slower. Either, we give death penalty cases too many appeals, or we don't give life sentence cases enough. Something is out of balance here.
(Addendum: Why don't we let death row prisoners choose? There are some interesting theories out there about humane execution. So long as the method chosen results in death, is acceptably inexpensive, can be accomplished from within the prison, and is not dangerous to others, it would be the most ethical way to kill someone. Not that it is ethical, that is still open for debate... but it would be the most ethical.)
To further illustrate your point, subdivision (b) only comes into effect on "equipment when installed in a vehicle". Since this was on her head, and not installed in a vehicle, (b) is irrelevant, as is all it's subdivisions: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (A), and (B).
The only subdivision that is relevant is (a). So, what are the important parts of (a)? Let me paraphrase for emphasis:
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if ... a video monitor, or ... similar ... is operating and is located ... at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and ... is visible to the driver...
In other words, in order to be in violation of (a), the screen must be operating. If the cop can't make a case that the screen was on, there is no violation. Of course, "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is easy to say, and easily ignored...
It's not fried yet, but it is running around with it's head chopped off.
I helped a small business migrate their email to yahoo. Big mistake. Some of their engineers are smart, but the business is really hampering their effort. They haven't a clue how to deliver a decent product to a paying customer.
Investment wasnt created after the Constitution, ...
True, and irrelevant. The modern idea of corporation was in its infancy, the idea of corporate person-hood was yet to be established. But what is important, was that the word "commerce" did not yet encompass investment. (unless someone can find a counter-example)
...and the idea that commerce includes investment isnt even relatively new.
Relative to what? To us today, or to the US Constitution? I beg to differ. It predates my birth, by quite a bit. In that sense, it is not new. But that is irrelevant to the intent of the signers of the Constitution.
This subthread is silly.
A point of view. Ok, we can agree that you see this subthread as silly.
The Gov isnt sticking their nose anywhere that it wasnt already. [etc]
Granted. This is relevant to the main thread, but not to my point.
Let me take a step back for a moment, and point to the Commerce Clause: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause was included to put an end to interstate trade restrictions, specifically interstate tariffs. It is intentionally written to be vague because they knew the states were bound to come up with a clever way around a narrowly tailored restriction.
Fast forward over the years, and you'll find that the federal government (especially congress, but not wholly), has used the Commerce Clause to play six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon. Everything is eventually related to the sale and transport of goods across state lines, and therefore can be regulated. This was not the original intent. Gradually folding investment into commerce, as opposed to being a related principle, only makes the extension of Federal power easier. This, also, isn't what the signers intended.
From a constitutional point of view, this is a very important topic, but not one that is likely to be dealt with at SCOTUS any time soon.
I say again, this subthread is silly and pointless.
There are many subthreads on Slashdot that are silly and pointless. I'm guessing that you're responding because this one makes you uncomfortable for some reason. That's OK. For instance, the idea that the Constitution is being flagrantly disregarded makes a lot of people uncomfortable. People often deride or reject that which is uncomfortable.
We do have absentee, to varying degrees based on state. Coercion is not (currently) a major problem with absentee voting because it is much easier to use it for ballot stuffing, or selective shredding. It's just not worth the effort that coercion requires.
Now places in the US used to have coercion problems. That's why we've got secret ballots to begin with. If it was the easiest way to influence politics, we'd re-develop that particular problem in some places (big cities, small swing states, etc).
Really? Coercion of millions of people? Please, do tell how that's viable in any scenario in a non-communist state.
You've got your terms mixed up. Communism and Democracy can theoretically co-exit (not advocating it, nor do they tend to, but they can). What you're referring to is totalitarianism. And if you think it can't come to the US, you've got your head screwed on backwards.
Strawman, apples-to-oranges comparison.
You've taken the ideal of one philosophy and compared it to the weakness of the other. A counter-argument, equally bad, could be made by flipping those.
Correct. The idea that commerce includes investment is a (relatively) recent development. Investment permits commerce. Investment isn't commerce, at least as the word used to be mean.
I accept that its usage does now typically encompass investment, but that is irrelevant to a constitutional discussion. You can't change the behavior of the Constitution by redefining words. That way lies madness. One would need to demonstrate that the common usage of the word in 1787 included investment (or better yet, 18th century legalese).
The way the word is typically defined in dictionaries does not include investment, only goods and sometimes services. I'm sure you can find an exception.
On what basis do you equate all business activity with "commerce"? Technically, investment isn't commerce. It's just frequently conducted by the same sorts of organizations. Besides, the SCOTUS has clearly ruled (from time to time) that intent of written law and constitutional statue are important, and not just the literal words used.