As other posters have noted - the judges wouldn't be thrown into the general population. Doing so
would be a death sentence. Surely you're not suggesting that when the government kills people, that a better policy is for them to do it on the sly and not take responsibility for their action.
The fact is many judges have been convicted and have served time. While no doubt that does deter criminal behavior from other judges, for truly heinous acts which act to subvert our very system of justice a stronger (more lethal) message should be supplied.
I am, however, well versed in cynicism and doubt that such a sentence would be given. Unless it was just to throw suspicion...
I know of at least one convicted and disbarred lawyer who works in a law firm as a paralegal. We need rules which prohibit practicing attorneys from hiring disbarred attorneys. While these bastards won't be judges - they may still be able to eke out a living in the legal field.
Appeals are made after the trial and are not concerned with fact-finding (what the trial does) but with procedure and law. Anyway, I'm sure that these trials (whether they are thrown out or not) are res judicata. If they're not though, I doubt that any DA would want to deal with this can of worms anyway since they're elected officials.
No no no. You are presenting rational and well-thought out libertarian ideas. Slashdot prefers the dyed-in-the-wool batshit crazy kind since this makes them feel both superior and special.
Also, this is one area where deterrence could actually work. Since deterrence requires a rational actor, it is ludicrous to imagine that, for example, cracked-out purveyors of street crime would modify their behavior b/c of the death penalty. But... these "gentlemen" are rational actors and those in the same position as them are as well. These types do respond to deterrence.
Responding to level4 - criminal justice is not about making it right for the victims (that's what their civil cases will be about). You say that society should come up with a way to eliminate these things from happening in the future. Now, a little thought experiment; assume that executing these judges would deter other judges from doing the same things. Shouldn't we hang them then? I'd argue that if in their deaths, they deter this behavior in the future, that this is probably the only redemption they'll ever get (the rat-fink-fucking-bastards).
I don't see how that makes any difference. Concerning services which I do pay for, I receive change of agreement notifications often. Indicating to me that irregardless of how an organization attempts to monetize their "product," that they will bend you over the barrel of (usually adhesive) contracts.
Methinks the proverb you were really going for is "Everyone is out to fuck everyone else."
As my dear old Mom always says, "you can't get blood from a turnip." Unless the defendants actually have some assets, the plaintiffs are just wasting their time.
As an advocate of realism, however, you should also realize that there is a potential for a security dilemma.
I also believe that ASAT weapons are a very narrow definition for what constitutes a space weapon. Think 'rods from god,' or think of the mischief that could be perpetrated by an aircraft launched micro-satellite. IMO, space weapon is almost as broad of a category as a sea- or land- weapon.
Not necessarily. You're anthropomorphizing these potential aliens by assuming that they are as prone to violence as we are. What if these aliens evolved from some herbivorous herd animal? They might just not have the inclination or basic nature to turn all of their technology to war purposes.
Of course, given that scenario, we probably wouldn't have to blow the fuck out of 'em:)-
It is possible that a weapons bans can inhibit general space tech in a few ways.
One, most space tech is what arm-control folks call 'dual-use.' Meaning, of course, that the technology can be easily converted to military use.
Two, arms-control requires verification. So, since (as TFA says) verification of potential space weapons is fraught with difficulties, this could depress advancements in commercial and exploration technology by raising the bar for entry into the sector.
Three, definitions of what constitutes space weapons has, for whatever reason, been difficult for the major space powers to hammer out. Thus, if a space weapon ban is enacted with vague language, many commercial interests will be scared off by that uncertainty.
There really are no existing bans on space weapons. Really the only legal limitations are a prohibition on placing nuclear weapons in orbit (hearkening back to the days of the Soviet's fractional bombardment system) and one concerning military bases on the moon.
Maybe you're talking about the ABM Treaty? If so, you realize that since Bush withdrew that it is null and void?
In so far as actual threat from space-based weapons - I'd say that the major developments in that area concern ASAT weapons and micro-satellites. Both areas where the US and China have demonstrated some capability.
Yeah - so all you nascent Thompsons, Hemingways, Asimovs, and whatnot should focus on writing for DVDs and video games from now on. I've always thought that creating iphone apps is the height of art.
/. is probably the best source of news on all the internets. From the delightfully polite GNA, to the depths of hidden goatse links, all the way up that taco guy's arse - coming to/. both enlightens and variously disgusts, enrages, and sickens. If only it had a seemingly sexy woman (with a stretched out stork neck and huge fucking hair) talkin' the news, this citizen wouldn't have to plumb the tubes quite so much.
Yeah, you're right - anyone who wants to solve problems on Earth should be reeducated so that they don't give a damn. Especially if they don't square with your ideology. Great. I'm clapping excitedly for you.
When I was a tech support guy at a manufacturing plant i had good success with washing keyboards (note, plural) in the dishwasher (no detergent, just water) after spraying various kitchen cleaners on them. The keyboard I'm typing on now has seen multiple washes. I think the key is to have a few of them on rotation so that you can allow them to dry properly (usually a few months).
It's generally accepted by both 'drug-warriors' and those who argue for more harm-reduction strategies that the main measure of success for supply-side control are prices and quality.
Increased purity could also be explained by improved technology
It most certainly could - but still is not an argument against price and purity being the best measure of supply-side control. If anything, it's an argument that supply-side control is more of a failure.
Dutch policies towards 'hard' drugs is not the monolithic policy which you seem to be claiming it is. While large quantities of, say heroin, are a matter for law enforcement - they're big on treatment for drug users with needle exchanges, safe spots, and even heroin Rx.
What you seem to be arguing, which I agree with, is that drug control should be multifaceted and aimed at harm reduction. True. However, that's not what prohibition is. If an item/substance is prohibited, then all transactions are criminalized. That is not what is needed.
Also, almost by definition, a person who thinks a crack addiction is a good idea is not rational. Deterrence only works on rational actors. I can just see it; a person is about to hit the 'glass dick' in some dirty crack house and they go, "Oh Wait! They just increased federal sentencing for crack use by two years - I'd better go home!"
Why should the gov't pay 20k-50k a year to keep a person from using drugs outside of prison? B/c it certainly doesn't prevent drug use - only moves it inside of prison.
Three types of crime have been associated with drug use and trafficking. 1) Psyhco-pharmacological - that is people all fucked up in the head and doing stupid shit 2) economic - that is when people do crime in order to maintain their drug habit and 3) systemic crime - which is the organized crime stemming from drug trafficking. Its obvious that except for the first type of crime, crime would decrease if prohibition was replaced with harm reduction strategies. Drug prices would decrease - giving an addict less reason to steal money b/c the money they have will go further. And most importantly, the crime associated with drug trafficking (street corner disputes, the FARC in Colombia, cartels in Mexico) would stop overnight as drug prices feel through the floor as drugs are removed from the black market.
Amsterdam doesn't dogmatically enforce 'hard' drug laws. That's why they're taking flak from the EU for things like needle exchanges and safe areas where heroin users can go shoot up.
Here's the thing - except data from the Office of Drug Control and some stuff from the State Department concerning crop eradication in Latin America (all of which has some serious methodological errors, such as conflating point estimates with confidence ranges) data shows that drug prohibition doesn't work. The best measure of the success of prohibition is the quality and price of the prohibited substance. Drugs are now cheaper and more pure than anytime in history. As another example of gov't misinformation, the Drug Czar recently said that cocaine has gone down in purity and up in price. What he didn't mention is that 1) the 4 times this occurred previously did not last and 2) the reason for the current price jump had more to do with fuel and fertilizer prices than any interdiction efforts.
Of further concern, drug use has not appreciably changed. The Drug War was started in full during a time of decreasing national drug use but also during a time when the media's attention on drug abuse went up (in 1980 major publications, for e.g., had ~30 stories annually on drugs - by the end of the decade it had ballooned to over 350). So, dead athletes in the news + election time = overly harsh legislation which no one read and which doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
As other posters have noted - the judges wouldn't be thrown into the general population. Doing so would be a death sentence. Surely you're not suggesting that when the government kills people, that a better policy is for them to do it on the sly and not take responsibility for their action.
The fact is many judges have been convicted and have served time. While no doubt that does deter criminal behavior from other judges, for truly heinous acts which act to subvert our very system of justice a stronger (more lethal) message should be supplied.
I am, however, well versed in cynicism and doubt that such a sentence would be given. Unless it was just to throw suspicion...
I know of at least one convicted and disbarred lawyer who works in a law firm as a paralegal. We need rules which prohibit practicing attorneys from hiring disbarred attorneys. While these bastards won't be judges - they may still be able to eke out a living in the legal field.
You can sue states - you just need their permission lol.
Appeals are made after the trial and are not concerned with fact-finding (what the trial does) but with procedure and law. Anyway, I'm sure that these trials (whether they are thrown out or not) are res judicata. If they're not though, I doubt that any DA would want to deal with this can of worms anyway since they're elected officials.
I'm constantly amazed at the number of Americans who do not understand the difference between criminal and civil law. Public education, anyone?
No no no. You are presenting rational and well-thought out libertarian ideas. Slashdot prefers the dyed-in-the-wool batshit crazy kind since this makes them feel both superior and special.
Also, this is one area where deterrence could actually work. Since deterrence requires a rational actor, it is ludicrous to imagine that, for example, cracked-out purveyors of street crime would modify their behavior b/c of the death penalty. But... these "gentlemen" are rational actors and those in the same position as them are as well. These types do respond to deterrence.
Responding to level4 - criminal justice is not about making it right for the victims (that's what their civil cases will be about). You say that society should come up with a way to eliminate these things from happening in the future. Now, a little thought experiment; assume that executing these judges would deter other judges from doing the same things. Shouldn't we hang them then? I'd argue that if in their deaths, they deter this behavior in the future, that this is probably the only redemption they'll ever get (the rat-fink-fucking-bastards).
I don't see how that makes any difference. Concerning services which I do pay for, I receive change of agreement notifications often. Indicating to me that irregardless of how an organization attempts to monetize their "product," that they will bend you over the barrel of (usually adhesive) contracts.
Methinks the proverb you were really going for is "Everyone is out to fuck everyone else."
Actually, he is guilty. Something like theft, kidnapping, and armed robbery.
We all suspect though, that he is guilty of the other thing - in addition to the courts finding him liable.
As my dear old Mom always says, "you can't get blood from a turnip." Unless the defendants actually have some assets, the plaintiffs are just wasting their time.
As an advocate of realism, however, you should also realize that there is a potential for a security dilemma.
I also believe that ASAT weapons are a very narrow definition for what constitutes a space weapon. Think 'rods from god,' or think of the mischief that could be perpetrated by an aircraft launched micro-satellite. IMO, space weapon is almost as broad of a category as a sea- or land- weapon.
Not necessarily. You're anthropomorphizing these potential aliens by assuming that they are as prone to violence as we are. What if these aliens evolved from some herbivorous herd animal? They might just not have the inclination or basic nature to turn all of their technology to war purposes.
:)-
Of course, given that scenario, we probably wouldn't have to blow the fuck out of 'em
It is possible that a weapons bans can inhibit general space tech in a few ways.
One, most space tech is what arm-control folks call 'dual-use.' Meaning, of course, that the technology can be easily converted to military use.
Two, arms-control requires verification. So, since (as TFA says) verification of potential space weapons is fraught with difficulties, this could depress advancements in commercial and exploration technology by raising the bar for entry into the sector.
Three, definitions of what constitutes space weapons has, for whatever reason, been difficult for the major space powers to hammer out. Thus, if a space weapon ban is enacted with vague language, many commercial interests will be scared off by that uncertainty.
There really are no existing bans on space weapons. Really the only legal limitations are a prohibition on placing nuclear weapons in orbit (hearkening back to the days of the Soviet's fractional bombardment system) and one concerning military bases on the moon.
Maybe you're talking about the ABM Treaty? If so, you realize that since Bush withdrew that it is null and void?
In so far as actual threat from space-based weapons - I'd say that the major developments in that area concern ASAT weapons and micro-satellites. Both areas where the US and China have demonstrated some capability.
Oh - Art Bell. Quite a powerful endorsement there. I bet that's how he talks to lycanthropic-vampires and our reptilian overlords from planet x.
Yeah - so all you nascent Thompsons, Hemingways, Asimovs, and whatnot should focus on writing for DVDs and video games from now on. I've always thought that creating iphone apps is the height of art.
/. is probably the best source of news on all the internets. From the delightfully polite GNA, to the depths of hidden goatse links, all the way up that taco guy's arse - coming to /. both enlightens and variously disgusts, enrages, and sickens. If only it had a seemingly sexy woman (with a stretched out stork neck and huge fucking hair) talkin' the news, this citizen wouldn't have to plumb the tubes quite so much.
Yes, yes! I really think we're on to something here.
And then write it in a language that no one else can read. Brilliant!
Yeah, you're right - anyone who wants to solve problems on Earth should be reeducated so that they don't give a damn. Especially if they don't square with your ideology. Great. I'm clapping excitedly for you.
When I was a tech support guy at a manufacturing plant i had good success with washing keyboards (note, plural) in the dishwasher (no detergent, just water) after spraying various kitchen cleaners on them. The keyboard I'm typing on now has seen multiple washes. I think the key is to have a few of them on rotation so that you can allow them to dry properly (usually a few months).
Nope - he was right on it.
Increased purity could also be explained by improved technology
It most certainly could - but still is not an argument against price and purity being the best measure of supply-side control. If anything, it's an argument that supply-side control is more of a failure.
Dutch policies towards 'hard' drugs is not the monolithic policy which you seem to be claiming it is. While large quantities of, say heroin, are a matter for law enforcement - they're big on treatment for drug users with needle exchanges, safe spots, and even heroin Rx.
What you seem to be arguing, which I agree with, is that drug control should be multifaceted and aimed at harm reduction. True. However, that's not what prohibition is. If an item/substance is prohibited, then all transactions are criminalized. That is not what is needed.
Also, almost by definition, a person who thinks a crack addiction is a good idea is not rational. Deterrence only works on rational actors. I can just see it; a person is about to hit the 'glass dick' in some dirty crack house and they go, "Oh Wait! They just increased federal sentencing for crack use by two years - I'd better go home!"
Why should the gov't pay 20k-50k a year to keep a person from using drugs outside of prison? B/c it certainly doesn't prevent drug use - only moves it inside of prison.
Three types of crime have been associated with drug use and trafficking. 1) Psyhco-pharmacological - that is people all fucked up in the head and doing stupid shit 2) economic - that is when people do crime in order to maintain their drug habit and 3) systemic crime - which is the organized crime stemming from drug trafficking. Its obvious that except for the first type of crime, crime would decrease if prohibition was replaced with harm reduction strategies. Drug prices would decrease - giving an addict less reason to steal money b/c the money they have will go further. And most importantly, the crime associated with drug trafficking (street corner disputes, the FARC in Colombia, cartels in Mexico) would stop overnight as drug prices feel through the floor as drugs are removed from the black market.
Amsterdam doesn't dogmatically enforce 'hard' drug laws. That's why they're taking flak from the EU for things like needle exchanges and safe areas where heroin users can go shoot up.
Here's the thing - except data from the Office of Drug Control and some stuff from the State Department concerning crop eradication in Latin America (all of which has some serious methodological errors, such as conflating point estimates with confidence ranges) data shows that drug prohibition doesn't work. The best measure of the success of prohibition is the quality and price of the prohibited substance. Drugs are now cheaper and more pure than anytime in history. As another example of gov't misinformation, the Drug Czar recently said that cocaine has gone down in purity and up in price. What he didn't mention is that 1) the 4 times this occurred previously did not last and 2) the reason for the current price jump had more to do with fuel and fertilizer prices than any interdiction efforts.
Of further concern, drug use has not appreciably changed. The Drug War was started in full during a time of decreasing national drug use but also during a time when the media's attention on drug abuse went up (in 1980 major publications, for e.g., had ~30 stories annually on drugs - by the end of the decade it had ballooned to over 350). So, dead athletes in the news + election time = overly harsh legislation which no one read and which doesn't work.