SCOTUS: Death Penalty for Juveniles Unconstitutional; Practice of 19 states erased [Archive]

Wyatt_Junker

03-01-2005, 09:45 AM

I think more than anything this just illustrates how distanced and unfamiliar these judges are with inner cities, drug dealing and using 15, 16, and 17 year olds as crack runners for the express purpose that they won't get D row if they have to hammer out a user. Its a joke. Gangsters know it and play into it, using minors to perform hits for this very reason.

Just goes to show how out of touch these wonderbread justices are. They wear frikkin Victorian doilies around their saggy necks, get their elbows professionally buffed and waxed in Brussels and have so much white anglo saxon guilt from politically correct interfaith seances that they feel they have to go soft & that soft is better. They want to show to the european world how compassionate they are, that America is best when she is weak, all on account of past sins and that we, the white man, the people of the pale fabric need to allow for an opening for the brutes to pass through.

Its a form of masochism and its roots are unhealthy. Just look at Ginsburg's face, like one of Francis Bacon's paintings, the disfigurement, the displaced nose, the wild eyes of something unhinged. All of these justices save 3 are what I would consider comittable to a local sanitarium, the inbred sophisticates of Elizabethan trash, their blood too rich and insanity ensues as a result.

shawnwood

03-01-2005, 10:56 AM

If they can argue that a child at age 6yrs and older is mature enough to take the "are you really a homo" test, and learn about intercourse and have abortions without parental consent, are they not mature and old enough to know that murder is a crime that is punishable by death?

S-T

03-01-2005, 11:00 AM

Shawnwood: don't confuse them with their own hypocrisy.

BarryG

03-01-2005, 11:33 AM

we need a new constitution before we're ever going to see justice again in this country.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 12:09 PM

I am sick of this liberal garbage. Kennedy wrote:

"When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."

What ridiculous bull!

Reagan never should have nominated this man to the Court. Also, Stevens, in a concurrence, says that he is sure that Alexander Hamilton, if he were alive today, would have voted with Kennedy. Yeah, right....

What can one truely say? While conservatives have been fighting brush fires to win 'important' elections, the most powerful branch of government, the Supreme Mullahs have continued their overturning of democracy and mocking the law.

They are modern despots, protected by a brainwashed public that is taught from childhood to pray to them as demi gods of subjective justice, immune to our social compact, to our sacred documents, or to our will. We are supplicants and vassels who trudge before them begging for a judgement to smite our political enemies, and make our minority opinion prevail over the rube majority.

It's so disgusting. I hope I have the opportunity, one day, to spit on some of these fellows...even urinate on their robes and shoes would be nice.

Fed UP and Burned out...they win.

RuffhouseFarm

03-01-2005, 01:01 PM

With some few exceptions, the longer a justice is on the court, the more liberal they become. Kennedy and O'Connor are good examples. They weren't always as they are now. I think what happens is that as their time on the court starts drawing to a close, and perhaps their lives, they worry more about leaving a legacy of being thought of as "mean" than they do the importance of upholding the constitution, and in particular the Tenth Amendment.

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 01:19 PM

With some few exceptions, the longer a justice is on the court, the more liberal they become.

This is very true, but the exceptions to the rule are big players. Scalia and Thomas are relatively static and will be "originalists" 'til the day they leave this world. Rehnquist has, in some ways, become more conservative as time has passed. Byron White, now deceased, also, in some ways, became more conservative as time passed. (However, White always rejected liberal interpretations when it come to social issues. He was a main dissenter from the original Roe v. Wade, and he dissented again 19 years later when the Court reaffirmed the central holding.)

They weren't always as they are now.

Kennedy was a "moderate" who wanted to fit in with the legal establishment from the very start. In his first few years, he reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade and struck down prayer at graduation ceremonies. Those are hardly conservative, or even moderate conservative, positions. Of course, you aren't very popular at cocktail parties if you are a conservative.

O'Connor has gone far to the left from where some people believed she stood. However, that doesn't come as a surprise, given her willingness to be open to "loose interpretations" of the Constitution.

I think what happens is that as their time on the court starts drawing to a close, and perhaps their lives, they worry more about leaving a legacy of being thought of as "mean" than they do the importance of upholding the constitution, and in particular the Tenth Amendment.

This part is true, but I think it only applies to those who have no firm judicial philosophy to begin with. To the three conservatives, Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist, being right is more important than being popular.

Beowulf

03-01-2005, 01:24 PM

I think a 16 and 17 year old should be eligible for the death penalty, if they pull a Columbine or somthing and don't take their own lives.

I was thinking this, CP. I agree totally.

shawnwood

03-01-2005, 01:26 PM

Shawnwood: don't confuse them with their own hypocrisy.

Can you elaborate on that some more please?

RuffhouseFarm

03-01-2005, 01:38 PM

This is very true, but the exceptions to the rule are big players. Scalia and Thomas are relatively static and will be "originalists" 'til the day they leave this world. Rehnquist has, in some ways, become more conservative as time has passed. Byron White, now deceased, also, in some ways, became more conservative as time passed. (However, White always rejected liberal interpretations when it come to social issues. He was a main dissenter from the original Roe v. Wade, and he dissented again 19 years later when the Court reaffirmed the central holding.).

Yes, I was thinking of Rehnquist as one of those exceptions, and I have no qualms about Scalia and Thomas remaining as they are now, although neither has been on the court anywhere near as long as Rehnquist or Stevens.

Kennedy was a "moderate" who wanted to fit in with the legal establishment from the very start. In his first few years, he reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade and struck down prayer at graduation ceremonies. Those are hardly conservative, or even moderate conservative, positions. Of course, you aren't very popular at cocktail parties if you are a conservative.

I tend to think O'Connor is worried about her popularity and legacy more than the others. Maybe it's because she's a she.

O'Connor has gone far to the left from where some people believed she stood. However, that doesn't come as a surprise, given her willingness to be open to "loose interpretations" of the Constitution.

She's become almost as big a disappointment as Souter.

This part is true, but I think it only applies to those who have no firm judicial philosophy to begin with. To the three conservatives, Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist, being right is more important than being popular.

Yes, that was my point, too. They just weren't as solid to begin with. Conversely, I'm wondering if Breyer may eventually turn out to be a disappointment to the lefties.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 01:39 PM

Sierra

03-01-2005, 01:57 PM

Kennedy is the poster child for just this unfortunate problem of being on the Court too long. More troubling still is the current habit of some justices to go surfing internationally for precedence that they can't find in U.S. </FONT>court decisions. To my mind this is in direct violation of their oaths as Justices, and should be grounds for immediate impeachment. Imagine if you will a local Police Chief lacking the authority to arrest you for a violation of a U<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:country-region><font color=" /><st1:country-region><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>nited States</FONT></FONT></st1:country-region><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana> federal, state, or local statute or law, deciding to arrest you for violating an ordinance from </FONT></FONT><st1:country-region><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>France</FONT></FONT></st1:country-region><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana> or </FONT></FONT><st1:country-region><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>Germany</FONT></FONT></st1:country-region><FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>. How long would we put up with that, not for a moment I assure you. Yet we meekly sit here and allow the most senior Law enforcement officials in the land to do just that. Where does this end; clearly we need term limits for these Judicial Dinosaurs In addition, whether by Constitutional Amendment or whatever the odious Marberry vs. Madison decision the court uses to illegally place themselves over both the Executive and Legislative branches must go! </FONT></FONT>

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 02:11 PM

As I recall, some published notes (after White's death) shows the real vileness of the court and recounts the political plotting and schemeing between justices. Kennedy, in particular, was going to vote against Roe V. Wade until the pressure for the far left caused him to jellyfish about, trying to get out of looking mean to the liberals, but fearful of looking a like a back stabber.

Those were Blackmun's, the original author of Roe, papers. They weren't released until last year, a certain number of years after his death. (I can't remember how many years ago he died, but it was around 5-10, and the release was prearranged. ) And yes, they revealed how justices, especially the liberals, would go into the chambers of other justices and pressure them to vote a certain way.

Kennedy may have been "tormented," but it's in those hard times that a person's true nature becomes clear. As indicated by Blackmun's notes, Kennedy flipflopped on the issue. (Much to Blackmun's delight) Unlike the three conservatives, I don't think Kennedy has any real convictions.

Ironically, in 2002 the gang of four (on the left) announced they found execution of those below 18 as shameful - huh, were did I get the idea that a judge who has already decided the case, especially based on there on personal morality, should recuse themselves for not being capable of impartiality ?

Don't expect liberals to play by the rules.

Respect them, no spit on them.

Sadly, as these awful decisions keep getting handed down, I'm becoming more inclined to agree with you.

Kathy29

03-01-2005, 02:34 PM

This case was to avoid the death penalty for a 17 year old that robbed a woman, hog tied her and threw her off a bridge into a river. One of the reasons he got the death penalty was because he bragged to his friends about his crime and that he was too young to ever get the DP.

The SC just agreed with him.

Lisa La Pierre was my friend's secretary. She liked to roller skate at the beach every day after work. She was young and fun loving.

One morning about 4am, she dropped off a friend after a night out at the clubs and breakfast. She was waiting to make sure her friend got in her house. A 9 year old boy walked up to Lisa, calmly shot her in the neck twice and walked away. He wanted to join the local gang. Lisa survived as a quadraplegic. She needed years of therapy (thank goodness she wasn't married or she'd be Shiavoed by now). The boye was caught at the age of 13 after having committing several other gang style murders. He did not get the death penalty because he was too young to know what he was doing.

While in prison he found God and became a minister of sorts. He educated himself and got a GED. He asked Lisa to forgive him. After several more years, Lisa became convinced that he had changed. She thought he was worthy of another chance as an adult. Lisa La Pierre led the movement to have him paroled with stringent controls. No one was happier than Lisa when he was paroled after her personal from a wheelchair testimony.

Within days after his parole, he disappeared and is now wanted for two more murders.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 02:38 PM

Those were Blackmun's, the original author of Roe, papers. They weren't released until last year, a certain number of years after his death. (I can't remember how many years ago he died, but it was around 5-10, and the release was prearranged. ) And yes, they revealed how justices, especially the liberals, would go into the chambers of other justices and pressure them to vote a certain way.

Kennedy may have been "tormented," but it's in those hard times that a person's true nature becomes clear. As indicated by Blackmun's notes, Kennedy flipflopped on the issue. (Much to Blackmun's delight) Unlike the three conservatives, I don't think Kennedy has any real convictions.

Don't expect liberals to play by the rules.

Sadly, as these awful decisions keep getting handed down, I'm becoming more inclined to agree with you.

Sierra suggested impeachment (I didn't know that was an option?). However I don't think anything will change until a conservative President has the balls (excuse my english) to put his/her administration on the line. Since the Warren Court it's become very very clear that the paramount issue of feedom, democracy, and the Republic has been in the power of the 9 Mullahs.

I don't think people really appreciate how much power they have, far more than mere Presidents and Congresses. To date, the S.Court has created all current law on Affirmative Action (by ignoring the actual text of the civil rights law); theft of public property for public use; defined 'interstate' commerce as any thing made anywhere subject to their constitutional musings and control; education; abortion; state's rights; penal systems; rights of terrorists, etc. It matters not that California does not want to pay for illegals public services, the SC finds they have a "right" to the citizens earnings. It matter's not what the consitution says on any subject, they burn some legal incense and devine the truth.

The court has revolutionized the authority and scope of government without a single vote of the citizens. At one time the view of the law was that one needed a constitutional amendment to make the income tax lawful or to outlaw alcohol ....does anyone think that, today, the constitution would need amended for a new tax by the state, or the outlawing of any commodity by government?

I admit it, I hate the courts more than any other branch of government. If we are to change it, a President must make it more important than temporary tax reforms, budget arguments, or single issue politics (e.g. marriage). Six of the robed farts needed driven into the street for people's justice...and if it happened I would enjoy it (quietly).

Sorry, just the way I feel.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 02:44 PM

Hey, if justice had been given and he was made a quadraplegic at nine, he'd been properly reformed and he never kill again.

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 03:09 PM

If we are to change it, a President must make it more important than temporary tax reforms, budget arguments, or single issue politics (e.g. marriage).

Agreed. It MUST be made one of the MOST important issues by the GOP. I would rank this issue No. 2 on the list, right behind national security.

Frankly, I was disappointed when Bush made social security one of his main issues for his second term. Social security is far less important than the way our most important document is interpreted.

3livzin8

03-01-2005, 03:35 PM

This crap REALLY irritates me! As a law enforcement officer for 20 years, I know full and well what some juvenile offenders are capable of. Why did the Supreme Court take it upon itself to overturn what 19 states agreed with? Does SCOTUS realize that EVERY juvenile offender is tried and sentenced by a competent judge or jury, who have heard the FACTS of the case involved and the CRIMINAL HISTORY of the offender???? How has this been allowed to happen?

Being from Virginia, it really, really gripes me that Lee Boyd Malvo (the Sniper) cannot be executed for his heinous crimes in the Commonwealth. Guess my tax dollars will be going to keep this animal alive for the rest of his life! It makes me want to puke!!
:soap:

Kathy29

03-01-2005, 03:41 PM

This is the second instance in which American laws were disregarded in favor of laws of other nations.

If we don't start dealing with the SC rather harshly, we'll find ourselves living under the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

Sierra

03-01-2005, 03:53 PM

Sierra suggested impeachment (I didn't know that was an option?). However I don't think anything will change until a conservative President has the balls (excuse my english) to put his/her administration on the line. Since the Warren Court it's become very very clear that the paramount issue of feedom, democracy, and the Republic has been in the power of the 9 Mullahs.

Once nominated by the President and affirmed by the Senate the only Constitutional means to remove a Justice is by Impeachment just as it is for the President this applies to all civil officers Article II Section 4). You mentioned that we need a President with balls sadly given the current weight of precedence neither the President nor Congress have any power over a Supreme Court decision other than to remove it by way of Constitutional amendment.

Thanks to Marberry vs. Madison the Court has reserved the right to act as the final arbiter of the conduct of the government. Where they found this right in the wording of the Constitution still escapes most strict constructionists to this day. To be fair I doubt seriously if there is any thing the President could do legally until this decision is removed as long as he wishes to abide by the letter of the law. We elected this man he made his platform plain at the start of his election; beyond his stated willingness to appoint like minded jurists to the Supreme Court what legal avenue is open to him?

This talk about dragging the members of the SCOTUS before the people’s justice is all fine and good it makes for great theater of the mind, as long as you understand we are a nation of laws with constitutionally mandated avenues for the redress of wrongs. As a sworn member in the armed forces of this country, I and those like me who hold to their oaths to the Constitution would never allow such a thing. The complexion of the Court has changed many times over the years this one will change in time as well. <O:p

PrezLeefun

03-01-2005, 03:55 PM

I just saw this thread, good thank God.

Wolfcounsel

03-01-2005, 04:54 PM

"I just saw this thread, good thank God." --PrezLeefun

Do you think the victims and their loved ones are rejoicing for those murderous punks?

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 05:13 PM

All good points. Scalia, as usual, show that the gang of five have no clothes. From his dissent, permit me to offer a few tidbits:

"What a mockery today’s opinion makes of Hamilton’s expectation (of court not making law), announcing the Court’s conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people’s laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.” Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards—and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent. “

<O:p</O:p

Scalia’s analysis is devastating, gutting the five morons.

<O:p</O:p
“(the) Court dutifully recites this test and claims halfheartedly that a national consensus has emerged since our decision in Stanford, because 18 States—or 47% of States that permit capital punishment—now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18, and because all of four States have adopted such legislation since [i]Stanford. See ante, at 11.
<O:p</O:p

Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50% of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus. “<O:p</O:p

“Now, the Court says a legislative change in four States is “significant” enough to trigger a constitutional prohibition. It is amazing to think that this subtle shift in numbers can take the issue entirely off the table for legislative debate.”<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

Then Scalia exposes the frauds as irrational and, effectively, liars:<O:p</O:p

“Of course, the real force driving today’s decision is not the actions of four state legislatures, but the Court’s “ ‘ “own judgment” ’ ” that murderers younger than 18 can never be as morally culpable as older counterparts. (But) If the Eighth Amendment set forth an ordinary rule of law, it would indeed be the role of this Court to say what the law is. But the Court having pronounced that the Eighth Amendment is an ever-changing reflection of “the evolving standards of decency” of our society, it makes no sense for the Justices then to prescribe those standards rather than discern them from the practices of our people. On the evolving-standards hypothesis,the only legitimate function of this Court is to identify a moral consensus of the American people. By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation? <SUP></SUP>

“…this is no way to run a legal system. We must disregard the new reality that, to the extent our Eighth Amendment decisions constitute something more than a show of hands on the current Justices’ current personal views about penology, they purport to be nothing more than a snapshot of American public opinion at a particular point in time (with the timeframes now shortened to a mere 15 years). We must treat these decisions just as though they represented real law, real prescriptions democratically adopted by the American people, as conclusively (rather than sequentially) construed by this Court. Allowing lower courts to reinterpret the Eighth Amendment whenever they decide enough time has passed for a new snapshot leaves this Court’s decisions without any force—especially since the “evolution” of our Eighth Amendment is no longer determined by objective criteria. To allow lower courts to behave as we do, “updating” the Eighth Amendment as needed, destroys stability and makes our case law an unreliable basis for the designing of laws by citizens and their representatives, and for action by public officials. The result will be to crown arbitrariness with chaos. “
<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

What makes me so angry is that while Boxer and Pelosi are self-evident montebanks and wanna be Huey Longs, the Supreme Court are robed mulluhs who use suitcases full of specialized terms to dazzle us with their madness. More to the point, when you boil down the divinations of the court, anyone with an IQ over 80 can see the wastelands of their reasoning... as I am sure they do behind closed doors (as they sniker at us lay rubes).

How can they live with themselves with such utterly self serving inventions? Are they not the least bit embarrassed that they appeal to the world for moral guidance, but when asked by pro-lifers to do the same (on demand abortion is only legal in six countries) they reject that argument as irrelevant to <ST1:p</ST1:plaw.

Bush is the President, he was elected with a mandate for real change. Kennedy, O'Conner, and Souter are Republican appointees that has turned their backs...and Ginsberg was vetted by Arlen Spector and approved by a Republican congress. ENOUGH!!!

When are we going to really fight back, when is our President going to take the bully pulpit and fight... the conservative world waits.

<O:p</O:p

Kathy29

03-01-2005, 05:13 PM

This case and the Lawrence case out of Texas both relied on foreign laws to reach their decision not the constitution. In essece our Constitution has been replaced by the consensus of foreign governments. This is certainly not the role of the Supreme Court.

Between these two cases, we effectively no longer have a constitution. Instead of our laws being the final word, our own Constitution has been abandoned for foreign law. Unfortunately the SC is no longer deserving of any honor or respect. They are no more qualified to Judge in the United States, that some magistrate in Paris.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 05:22 PM

Kathy,

Nope, the constitution was murdered sometime ago. No book makes it clearer that Bork's great work "The Tempting of America". The legal witchdoctors will be stirring the pot of their voodo for years to come, finding vapours of foriegn law whenever they cannot find anything here to justify their crass egos. They will choose a magistrate in France, or in Tehran as they see fit.

Warlady

03-01-2005, 05:44 PM

PrezLeefun

03-01-2005, 06:31 PM

Wolfie to answer your question no of course not. And I feel bad for the families, but I am against the death penalty. I have already expressed that.

Wolfcounsel

03-01-2005, 06:37 PM

"Wolfie to answer your question no of course not. And I feel bad for the families, but I am against the death penalty. I have already expressed that." --PrezLeefun

I still have hope that the people will overturn the rule of those clowns in the fag robes.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 06:38 PM

O'Conner and Kennedy have been the swingers on the Court. Each have written emotive and subjective nonsense - they vote with their hearts, tormented by legal training that occasionally intrudes on the rational part of their old, shrucken, brains.

O'Conner voted to give the Guantanmo terrorists newly discovered American rights, she sided with the abortionists in Roe v Wade reviews, etc. I was shocked that she actually dissented...but even in reading her dissent you could see the "can't we find a lets all get along solution" seeping in her appeal. I have little respect for her judicial reasoning.

Both of these former 'conservatives' have gotten, like many old people, sentimental and gushing. And with their advancing years they've relied on law clerks to give them some paradigm to support flabby thinking...in other words, they don't know what their theory of law is any more.

Both of these jurists are a disgrace and as legal minds, jokes. At least the reds on the court (you know, the commies) are consistent in their theories.

As Scalia shows, most of the court is nuts.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 06:55 PM

This talk about dragging the members of the SCOTUS before the people’s justice is all fine and good it makes for great theater of the mind, as long as you understand we are a nation of laws with constitutionally mandated avenues for the redress of wrongs. As a sworn member in the armed forces of this country, I and those like me who hold to their oaths to the Constitution would never allow such a thing. The complexion of the Court has changed many times over the years this one will change in time as well. <O:p

And would you then defend the state into despotism? There may come a time (altough I think it unlikely) that many of its people may become fed up with an out of control state usurping the liberties of our people. There may come a time where by rule of the majority, property is collectivized, taxs are confiscatory, and the state becomes the owner and distributer of all wealth by the 51% in power. There may come a time where the court invents "free speech" as meaning "politically correct speech" and all guns are confiscated.

When the consitution is in tatters, and the rights granted under them usurped by judicial tyrants or bread and circus congresses...when saying we are a nation of laws becomes mockery...

Well would you still fight to preserve such tyranny and despotism?

So when I suggest a bit of steet justice, I fully know there are those who will defend these rascals...but I also know there is a right to revolution estabished in the declaration and would like to think you have your limits of fidelity.

And I'm suggesting that while impractical and ill advised, we are near that moral break with our rulers....our masters.

And frankly, I do not believe this court will change. It's been more than 60 years of a steady march to collectized rights. In that time, government has become a giant, sucking the people for massive schemes and redistribution. Liberalism has often been slowed, even checked, but never turned back. Even under Bush we've expanded the welfare state of (medicare drugs) and ignored our borders. Soon the court will rule on private property confiscation, almost certainly expanding the rights of local governments to sieze peoples homes and business.

My suggestion is that this runs deeper than "me loyal to the rulers".

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 07:05 PM

This is the second instance in which American laws were disregarded in favor of laws of other nations.
.

This is actually at least the third time the current Court has used foreign law and/or opinion in a major decision. The first was in Atkins v. Virginia, where the Court struck down the death penalty for mentally challenged offenders. (2002) Then, the Court cited foreign decisions in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down all sodomy laws. (2003) And now we have this awful decision, Roper v. Simmons. (2005)

Oh, and of course, no one doubts that foreign views played a key role in the Guantanamo case. (2004)

Each time the use of foreign beliefs, opinions, and law has become bolder and larger. In Atkins, the reference to foreign opinion was relatively minor, yet still very disturbing. However, in this latest case, foreign law and its importance takes up a significant chunk of the majority opinion. This is outrageous and it must stop.

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 07:17 PM

, but I am against the death penalty.

Fine. Go and convice your fellow citizens to support your view. That's the way a Democratic Republic is supposed to work. But to cheer at such a disgusting usurpation of the People's right to govern is just plain wrong.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 07:19 PM

...Each time the use of foreign beliefs, opinions, and law has become bolder and larger. In Atkins, the reference to foreign opinion was relatively minor, yet still very disturbing. However, in this latest case, foreign law and its importance takes up a significant chunk of the majority opinion. This is outrageous and it must stop.

It won't stop, it will only grow. Its a part of the legal theories being taught in 90% of the law schools. This now frees the Supreme Mullahs from any need to pay attention to our consitution, and to rule with impunity.

Frankly, it won't stop until some far off day the people of this coutnry stop argueing about hot-button issues (e.g. Ward Churchill) and focus on the most powerful and runaway branch of government. Even then it won't change until enough are willing to march on the Court to sieze it, and like the 1989 revolutions, the soliders throw down their arms and join the people.

It won't happen. In 60 more years, the march to a nation of ersatz liberty and empty words will be complete, and there is nothing in the last 60 years to suggest any different.

Warlady

03-01-2005, 07:29 PM

Prez, I can appreciate you being against the death penalty but for the highest court in the land to support the death penalty and then userp states rights is just plain wrong and they did it based on global opinion. That is just insane and I'm very worried about future decisions now.

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 07:40 PM

That is just insane and I'm very worried about future decisions now.

Yes, it will only get worse. Six justices support the idea that foreign laws and opinions should play a role in how our Constitution is interpreted. I'm glad O'Connor went with our side today, but she is still part of that six-member camp, so I'm very concerned about her vote in future cases.

:hissyfit:

Warlady

03-01-2005, 07:45 PM

Same here Thomas. I'm very concerned.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 07:51 PM

I just saw this thread, good thank God.

Prez, this is probably falling on deaf ears...but let me try.

This is an era where no one, no matter how gifted, thinks in terms of principle or honor the application of reason. Amost every stance is a wear it on your sleeve shallowness, prompted by little more than emotions and ego.

I am against most (not all) capital punishment. I think it arbitrary, often discriminatory, and has sent innocents to their death. But I am against something far more immoral than one issue, i.e. a threat to the basis of the Republic that defines the processes that defend our liberties...including the process of democracy that is given each of us to make laws and punish those who would deny our rights.

Would you use government to destroy free speech in order for your voice prevail? Would you use government to destroy all other religons to make sure your faith was the only one left? Would you break into people's homes without warrant or deny them a trial jury if it effectively reduced crime?

You see, I value the only document we have that gives our nation legitamacy and protects our liberty. It is the founding document. I will not say "well I don't like the death penality so I don't care that 5 judges mocked the constituion and sent us further down the slope of despotism".

I recall Bork's use of the play A Man for All Seasons. When Thomas More's son-in-law asserted that he'd mow every law down in England to get at the Devil, More asked "What would you do then Roper, having cornered the devil and having laid flat every law...where would you then hide? I'll give the devil his due Roper, not for his own sake but for mine."

It's a lesson that too few understand or cherish.

UnkHiram

03-01-2005, 08:08 PM

Prez

In relation to the Texas case --- The Juvenile (He was 17) was given the Death Penalty for Capital Murder. He already had 7 Felony Convictions and 3 Previous Shootings. This is the kind of scum that gets the death penalty. When I heard about this case the first question that popped into my mind was WHY was he on the streets in the first place, he should have already been on Death Row.

I Guess the only Death Penalty that can be used on someone under 18 is abortion!

Apollo5600

03-01-2005, 08:09 PM

but I also know there is a right to revolution estabished in the declaration and would like to think you have your limits of fidelity.

Absolutely! And it isn't just a right, it is a Duty!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

DoctorDoom

03-01-2005, 08:32 PM

And I feel bad for the families, but I am against the death penalty. I have already expressed that.On what basis? Why should the taxpayers be forced to support a PoS who exacted the death penalty on his victims without benefit of trial or jury?

If a person willfully, cold-bloodedly takes another person's life that person forfeits his/her right to life. The state has the right and the duty to its citizens to terminate the scumbag. The fact that no matter how heinous the crime is, the DP is administered quickly — and in the case of lethal injection, painlessly — demonstrates that we already have far too much compassion on the bastards.

A "child" of 16 or older who commits a horrific crime of murder is fully aware of the evil of his crime, and deserves to die, period. Whether it is at the hands of the state or of vigilantes is immaterial. If the state is disallowed from exacting justice, then equally effective alternatives need to be explored. Rope justice might be crude, but it's effective.

maxparrish

03-01-2005, 08:43 PM

Yes Apollo, the right of revolution is, ironically, our most important conservative right!

S-T

03-01-2005, 08:51 PM

Kathy29: I'm sorry about your friend. Your story illustrates that evil does not have age limits.

Here's another case that, like Roe v. Wade will be cited as "the law of the land" and that the SCOTUS has "spoken" on the matter. However, the decision (like Roe) came down 5-4. If it was so clear that executing minors is unconstitutional, why did four Supreme Court justices vote the other way?

I think this was a bad decision. I understand having a cutoff age for executions. But at 16 or 17 years old, most people understand right and wrong and the consequences of their actions. Why should someone be a candidate for capital punishment if they murder someone on their 18th birthday, but not if they are just a bit younger? What is so magical about ten months?

I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of the Left on this issue. Why is it that a 16 or 17 year old is mature enough to full "reproductive freedom" (in other words, the right to kill an unborn child) but not be mature enough to be eligible for the death penalty if he or she engineers a Columbine-like massacre?

David Bayly has a good commentary (http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/013017.html) on the issue.

ThomasIsUnderrated

03-01-2005, 09:20 PM

However, the decision (like Roe) came down 5-4.

I agree with the point of your post, but Roe itself was not that close of a split. If I remember correctly, the general thrust of the opinion was 7-2. (Just like Dred Scott.) The decision in 1992 to reaffirm it was 5-4. The current support for Roe on the Court is 6-3.

Rink

03-01-2005, 09:47 PM

Max your statement here concerning land rights:

Soon the court will rule on private property confiscation, almost certainly expanding the rights of local governments to sieze peoples homes and business.

Hun its Already happened, I live in a Federally Uber-managed area over hundreds of miles, some places you cannot do a thing on your land, cant move a rock, cant cut a tree, cant develop it, and yet you the landholder Must pay land taxes on that land.

We have tried and tried and tried, at state and federal AND Supreme Court levels tried to throw off the yoke of this unconstitutional land grab by the federal Government in 1986, and the Supreme Court Will NOT even look at it let alone rule on it.

We are a people dispossessed of our land and forced to pay taxes on land we cannot develop or sell.

We have no redress of grievances, we have no avenue and nobody will listen to us or hear our pleas.

So we live under a federally managed land system that is not only in violation of our Constitutional rights, but also in violation of Both oregon and Washington state constitutions (concerning the Bi-state committee).

We cannot get any justice from the Supreme Court and this has been going on since 1986 that is 19 years worth of a heavy Federal yoke upon our backs that is destroying the Timber industry, killing off small timber towns, breaking the tax-base of local economies who once relied on timber tax revenues to pay for schools and other social help and more.

Old folk cant build their retirement homes on land they've owned for decades now due to the heavy-handed federal legislation, people who have homes cant do a thing with their land and are at the beck and whim of unelected, appointed, unaccountable committees who rule with an iron-hand over the peons in my area.

Its already happened Thanks to the Supreme Court's lack of backbone on this land rights issue.

Pennville_Bill

03-02-2005, 05:35 AM

Well, Lee Malvo is certainly breathing easier this morning.......... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/signdammit.gif

shawnwood

03-02-2005, 10:12 AM

I think this is why Rusty Humphries moved from there to Florida! I remember hearing him talk about this. He said he had a nice sized piece of land and could not do a single thing to it. Totally insane!

Max your statement here concerning land rights:

Hun its Already happened, I live in a Federally Uber-managed area over hundreds of miles, some places you cannot do a thing on your land, cant move a rock, cant cut a tree, cant develop it, and yet you the landholder Must pay land taxes on that land.

We have tried and tried and tried, at state and federal AND Supreme Court levels tried to throw off the yoke of this unconstitutional land grab by the federal Government in 1986, and the Supreme Court Will NOT even look at it let alone rule on it.

We are a people dispossessed of our land and forced to pay taxes on land we cannot develop or sell.

We have no redress of grievances, we have no avenue and nobody will listen to us or hear our pleas.

So we live under a federally managed land system that is not only in violation of our Constitutional rights, but also in violation of Both oregon and Washington state constitutions (concerning the Bi-state committee).

We cannot get any justice from the Supreme Court and this has been going on since 1986 that is 19 years worth of a heavy Federal yoke upon our backs that is destroying the Timber industry, killing off small timber towns, breaking the tax-base of local economies who once relied on timber tax revenues to pay for schools and other social help and more.

Old folk cant build their retirement homes on land they've owned for decades now due to the heavy-handed federal legislation, people who have homes cant do a thing with their land and are at the beck and whim of unelected, appointed, unaccountable committees who rule with an iron-hand over the peons in my area.

Its already happened Thanks to the Supreme Court's lack of backbone on this land rights issue.

Warlady

03-02-2005, 10:56 AM

Well well well, one day after the SCOTUS made this assinine ruling a 15 year old pulls a gun on a bus driver blowing her away. Way to go Supremes.

tacitus

03-02-2005, 11:17 AM

Well well well, one day after the SCOTUS made this assinine ruling a 15 year old pulls a gun on a bus driver blowing her away. Way to go Supremes.

They do that now.

Wolfcounsel

03-02-2005, 11:30 AM

I wonder how many Americans out there believe in the infallibility of those black-robed clowns. Besides the anti-death penalty weenies, I mean.

Warlady

03-02-2005, 11:37 AM

They do what now tac?

PrezLeefun

03-02-2005, 12:28 PM

tacitus

03-02-2005, 12:32 PM

They do what now tac?

Murder.

Believe me I still advocate the death penalty. I just don't think the specter of the death penalty stops many from murder.

tacitus

03-02-2005, 12:34 PM

I think our prison system needs to toughen up and bring back just bread and water for murderers.

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

Yau have to be kidding!

Wolfcounsel

03-02-2005, 12:40 PM

"I think our prison system needs to toughen up and bring back just bread and water for murderers." --PrezLeefun

I am cruel but fair, Prez. Let's compromise. I am willing to allow murderers to be housed by volunteer good citizens. Make them responsible for keeping them under house arrest, and maintaining them the way they see fit, without taxpayers' help. Any escape or attempt to escape by the punk will result in the lifetime incarceration of the volunteer Samaritan. How does that sound?

Incident_command

03-02-2005, 01:08 PM

But we as humans do not have the right regardless of how we feel to take another person's life. You cannot teach people killing is wrong by killing. I quite frankly I dont want the blood of another human being on any upstanding prison worker's hands.

What makes you so sure of this and who took this right away from us in your opinion?
You seem to put murder and execution under the same definition. That doesn't work. They are two very different things.
Also under that line of thought, how does your opinion reflect in a time of war? Are soldiers guilty of murder?

Sierra

03-02-2005, 01:53 PM

And would you then defend the state into despotism?

Of course not read my post again, I said as a sworn member of the armed forces my oath is to the Constitution not to state sponsored despotism or any half baked revolutionary uprising either! Once again we are a nation of laws; our Constitution provides a legal remedy to every matter that has been discussed here. However it does require the will of the majority of our citizens; how easy some of you seem to forget that, as you lose yourself in revolutionary fervor. What is needed here is a strong measured response to years of Liberal Socialist control of Congress that has packed the Courts with Judges that no longer reflect the will of mainstream <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:country-region>America</st1:country-region>. We have an opportunity to reverse much of this but it will never happen by scaring the hell out of the electorate with silly talk of vigilante pipedreams. You want to change our government within the limits of our Constitution, great, I’m with you; attempt an end run around it and you are no better than some cheap South American Junta.

RuffhouseFarm

03-02-2005, 01:53 PM

Ruffhouse said I tend to think O'Connor is worried about her popularity and legacy more than the others. Maybe it's because she's a she.

Huh? Did you know she voted with Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia on this issue today? I'm not saying she's not liberal on a great deal of issues but I don't understand your above statement.

What really angers me is that those who voted to omit juvies from the death penalty said they took world opinion into consideration.

Huh? Did you know that the vote breakdown by justice was not given in Thomas's posts that I was responding to? Did you know that my comments to Thomas were of a broad nature about the liberalness of the court in general? Did you know that it was O'Connor who originally articulated this idea of taking world opinion into consideration some time back? I hope these questions help you to understand my statement.

RuffhouseFarm

03-02-2005, 02:07 PM

Murder.

Believe me I still advocate the death penalty. I just don't think the specter of the death penalty stops many from murder.

Then why is violent crime so much lower in right-to-carry states?

I think the difference is age. Kids think they're infallible and they've never really contemplated death anyway. Life is a cartoon or a video game to them.

3livzin8

03-02-2005, 02:11 PM

IMHO, vigilante justice, while not perfect, tends to reduce crime. Criminal have guns now (and always will be able to get them no matter what is done to prevent it), so why not arm law abiding folks so the next time a punk tries to rob them in broad daylight, they can give the punk a little "suprise"?

Sierra

03-02-2005, 02:18 PM

"Beware of the power of stupid people in large numbers" 

Yeah that Democracy thing is way overrated :smack:

tacitus

03-02-2005, 03:36 PM

Then why is violent crime so much lower in right-to-carry states?

I think the difference is age. Kids think they're infallible and they've never really contemplated death anyway. Life is a cartoon or a video game to them.

What does the right to carry arms have to do with the discussion?

I think your reasoning regarding the kids is off base. How many murders are done by kids versus adults? Do adults think life is a video game? Do adults contemplate the death penalty before killing anyone? Do you think McVeigh gave a rats ass about the death penalty before he murdered all those people?

Rink

03-02-2005, 03:58 PM

I wonder if the Supreme Court can be sued for wrongful deaths now that they gave the green light to underage murderers to go ahead and murder so they can be part of their gangs and such?

PrezLeefun

03-02-2005, 04:11 PM

What makes you so sure of this and who took this right away from us in your ...opinion?
You seem to put murder and execution under the same definition. That doesn't w...ork. They are two very different things.
Also under that line of thought, how does your opinion reflect in a time of war? Are soldiers guilty of murder?

You just wanna pull my leg don't you? :thumb:
I have already expressed my feelings about war. but I will do it again just for you:cool: . War is justifiable because it is a last resort/ emergency type action to protect a whole society from one singular direct threat. Soldiers are defenders, not murderers. The death penalty does not have a self defense motive, it has a revenge motive, that is what makes it immoral.

Wolfcounsel

03-02-2005, 04:20 PM

"Soldiers are defenders, not murderers. The death penalty does not have a self defense motive, it has a revenge motive, that is what makes it immoral." --PrezLeefun

Soldiers attack also. This touchy-feely stuff about shooting to defend instead of shooting to kill is nothing but liberal namby-pamby crap. But that's another subject.

Can you point out how it is the responsibility of the taxpayers to shell out money to take care of murdering garbage? Garbage that would not bat an eye as he rips your life from your body, even as you defend his "right" to continue being a human being and not be executed?

RuffhouseFarm

03-02-2005, 04:21 PM

What does the right to carry arms have to do with the discussion?

I think your reasoning regarding the kids is off base. How many murders are done by kids versus adults? Do adults think life is a video game? Do adults contemplate the death penalty before killing anyone? Do you think McVeigh gave a rats ass about the death penalty before he murdered all those people?

My point about right-to-carry is that people are less likely to commit a violent crime if they reasonably suspect they will get their head blown off. If a violent criminal reasonably expects he will get the death penalty, his is less likely to commit that ultimate act. Granted, the spectre of the DP is a less immediate and final penalty than immediately getting your head blown off in the commission of a violent felony , but what I'm trying to point out is the intimidation factor of paying the ultimate penalty.

Yes, adults contemplate the DP if they intend to commit the crime in a state that has the DP, but they figure they're going to get away with it. They weigh the risks and either go for it or not. Just because murders do occur does not mean that people don't first contemplate the consequences. Obviously, we can never know how many murders are averted because of the threat of the DP. I've always thought the argument that, because capital murders continue to occur in DP states it therefore follows that the DP is not a deterrent, was highly flawed for this reason. There is an unknown factor of how many DID NOT go forward with a pre-meditated murder because of the DP, so there is no way to logically conclude that it is not a deterrent. I doubt that we could get honest results from a poll featuring that question, either.:duh:

I was saying that murderous kids, the focus of the USSC decision, don't recognize death the same way adults over about age 24 or so do, that's all, which may make it easier for them to kill. They think they are indestructible and infallible. They are overly confident and cocky.

PrezLeefun

03-02-2005, 04:24 PM

Wolfcounsel

03-02-2005, 04:27 PM

"Wolfie you are oozing in revenge...this is why I dont like the thought of killing people. You are wise; but here it is clear your emotions are ruling your mind." --PrezLeefun

I do not believe I have been more stoic than now.

RuffhouseFarm

03-02-2005, 04:30 PM

Prez, a dead murderer hanged, fried, gassed or injected by the state will not be committing any more murders. Of that we can be sure. It's very finality is its most desirable point.

Warlady

03-02-2005, 04:35 PM

tac, are you familiar with the case the Supremes were deciding this ruling on? It was a particularly heinous crime where a juvenile bound and tied up a woman and threw her off of a bridge while still alive and she drowned. He stated that he believed that the law was that he wouldn't get the death penalty because he was under 18 and that's why he felt it was okay to kill her...because he wouldn't go to death row. I just watched Brit Hume and Jonathan Turley discussing this very topic. As Jonathan Turley said it wasn't exactly a good case for them to go the way they went. Insane. 5 of the Supremes stated that they based their decision in part on international influence. Again insane.

Maggie_T

03-02-2005, 04:37 PM

SCOTUS: Death Penalty for Juveniles Unconstitutional; Practice of 19 states erased

Yeah. I nearly choked on my coffee when I heard this on the radio this morning.

Here we go again. Liberal judges (and don't give me any shit about so-and-so being a 'moderate conservative'; lately, all these bozos in black are acting like liberals - except Scalia and other FEW true conservatives) soiling their underwear at the thought of being considere "non-compassionate."

Well, I've always said it:

LIBERALS ARE SOFT ON CRIMINALS, HARD ON VICTIMS (OF CRIME).

Guys, read "Men in Black. How the Supreme Court is Destroying America" by Mark Levin (I haven't done it yet, but that's the next book on my list). See here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260506/qid=1109806441/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1245561-7826352).

I hope it becomes a bestseller ... and that it makes people really angry. It's the only way something will be done about these megalomaniacal bozos.

Warlady

03-02-2005, 04:43 PM

I want to get that book also. I'm very concerned about the current court. They are nuts. Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia seem to be the only rational thinkers on the court. And Rehnquist is leaving. This sucks. I thought Ruth Bader Ginsberg had cancer. What happened with that?

Maggie_T

03-02-2005, 04:50 PM

I don't know, WL. It's news to me. I am SUPER concerned. Something has to be done about it. That was one of the (many) reasons I voted for Bush again. I hope he won't let me down.

BuckeyeMike

03-02-2005, 05:15 PM

SLOW DOWN EVERYONE! Jeez back off! I am pro- life thats it. I'm not changing my views regardless of how disgusting a person is. I think our prison system needs to toughen up and bring back just bread and water for murderers. Bring back the chain gang. No TV, no Free college education. make prison hard.

ACLU and all other weep easys won't allow that and you know it!

But we as humans do not have the right regardless of how we feel to take another person's life.

We don't take their life....they take their own life when they knowingly commit a crime that they know could quite possible result in their life being forfeited!

You cannot teach people killing is wrong by killing.

Are you telling me that a person has to be taught that taking someone's life is wrong? Gimme a break!

I quite frankly I dont want the blood of another human being on any upstanding prison worker's hands.

Those prison workers go into the profession knowing fully well what their duties might entail. I'm sure they don't mind the "blood of a usless murdering POS" on their hands! They really don't give a flying **** whether you want that blood on their hands or not! It's all strictly voluntary to "get the duty" anyway! If they didn't want to do it they wouldn't be there!

PrezLeefun

03-02-2005, 05:19 PM

BM i have right to my opinion, if you dont like it: too damn bad. I was clearly challenged to explain myself so I did. Deal with it.

Warlady

03-02-2005, 05:32 PM

Maggie, it's Frist you need to not let you down.

RuffhouseFarm

03-02-2005, 05:49 PM

Yeah, and meanwhile Frist has his panties in a twist over changing a senate rule to conform to the constitution so we can get some sensible judges capable of leaving their handkerchiefs at their bedsides in the morning.

tacitus

03-02-2005, 05:52 PM

My point about right-to-carry is that people are less likely to commit a violent crime if they reasonably suspect they will get their head blown off. If a violent criminal reasonably expects he will get the death penalty, his is less likely to commit that ultimate act. Granted, the spectre of the DP is a less immediate and final penalty than immediately getting your head blown off in the commission of a violent felony , but what I'm trying to point out is the intimidation factor of paying the ultimate penalty.

If that's your point then maybe the idea of being shot to death with no chance for appeal, or some hijinks by a lawyer might deter one. Until I see some data I reserve judgement on the facts.

Yes, adults contemplate the DP if they intend to commit the crime in a state that has the DP, but they figure they're going to get away with it. They weigh the risks and either go for it or not. Just because murders do occur does not mean that people don't first contemplate the consequences. Obviously, we can never know how many murders are averted because of the threat of the DP. I've always thought the argument that, because capital murders continue to occur in DP states it therefore follows that the DP is not a deterrent, was highly flawed for this reason. There is an unknown factor of how many DID NOT go forward with a pre-meditated murder because of the DP, so there is no way to logically conclude that it is not a deterrent. I doubt that we could get honest results from a poll featuring that question, either.:duh:

Speculation on your part with no basis in fact.

I firmly believe that once the death sentence has been passed, the accused has one appeal and when that's done instant death if they lose. This bs of appeals for 15+years is insanity at the expense of the taxpayer.

RuffhouseFarm

03-02-2005, 06:10 PM

If that's your point then maybe the idea of being shot to death with no chance for appeal, or some hijinks by a lawyer might deter one. Until I see some data I reserve judgement on the facts.

Speculation on your part with no basis in fact.

I firmly believe that once the death sentence has been passed, the accused has one appeal and when that's done instant death if they lose. This bs of appeals for 15+years is insanity at the expense of the taxpayer.

There won't be any data because rational people will not admit that they have ever contemplated murder even in the abstract. I maintain that if people think they will die if they do something, they are less likely to take the risk. It's the same reason people give up smoking. They know they're not going to die from it tomorrow, but they know there's a good chance it'll get them eventually. It's called risk aversion and we all do it ("I'd like to knock the shit out of that guy!".........but we won't because we don't want to be arrested, hauled to jail, forced to hire a lawyer, get sued, forced to hire yet another lawyer for that, and so on).

As for speculating about youths not fearing death and not intellectually grasping its finality, just look how kids (male teens mainly) now and always have behaved. They take dangerous risks sometimes to 'prove' something, sometimes just for fun. My friends and I used to drive cars 160 mph, we used to shoot at night in places we shouldn't have been, we drank until we were sick, we climbed rocks and jumped into a lake far below and had to jump out far enough to clear rocks jutting out on the way down. We raised a lot of hell and never thought for one minute we'd ever get hurt, killed or even in much trouble. And we sure as hell weren't the first or last idiots to do these things. That's my basis in fact, or call it imperical evidence if you like. Besides, this is a discussion board where people give opinions that they hope are educated enough to write about. This isn't a courtroom, so I'll speculate with the best of them, okay? Kids see death in the abstract only - it has nothing to do with them. They are not risk-averse.

I agree with your last paragraph.

BuckeyeMike

03-02-2005, 06:12 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-02-2005, 09:56 PM

Think of it this way . . . take the BTK case, this dude is a serial killer. In essence, he declared war on random people. He methodically and strategically planned their torture and executions, and even used the media to his tactical advantage. The "state" then declared war on him, vowing to hunt him down and and do war against him (execution for his crimes). This makes perfect sense; a "pro-life" argument, in this case, makes none. Allowing BTK to "live" within the prison system for his crimes, only allows him to continue his "war," should he so choose. I mean, what more could be done to him if he decides to kill more random people within the prison walls? He's ALREADY serving a life sentence . . . is it moral to put other inmates' lives in jeopardy?

I do not think the death penalty should be thought of as a deterent. I f carried out within a reasonable time frame (my suggestion would be 2 years, start to finish from the moment of sentencing, including appeals), then that would merely be a benefit of its use. The death penalty should be about consequences for a crime -- punishment. You kill, you will be killed -- a life for a life, that is as fair as we will ever get as human mortal beings.

3livzin8

03-02-2005, 09:59 PM

AMEN!

maxparrish

03-03-2005, 06:30 PM

Of course not read my post again, I said as a sworn member of the armed forces my oath is to the Constitution not to state sponsored despotism or any half baked revolutionary uprising either! Once again we are a nation of laws; our Constitution provides a legal remedy to every matter that has been discussed here. However it does require the will of the majority of our citizens; how easy some of you seem to forget that, as you lose yourself in revolutionary fervor. What is needed here is a strong measured response to years of Liberal Socialist control of Congress that has packed the Courts with Judges that no longer reflect the will of mainstream America</FONT>. We have an opportunity to reverse much of this but it will never happen by scaring the hell out of the electorate with silly talk of vigilante pipedreams. You want to change our government within the limits of our Constitution, great, I’m with you; attempt an end run around it and you are no better than some cheap South American Junta.

I did read it, my challenge was based on your implicit assumption that your oath to defend constitution was defending the 5 or 6 tenured lawyers that have become open enemies of the constitution - my suggestion is that, at some point in the future, you will have to reconcile this contradiction.

Yes our nation is a nation of laws, and it was formed to insure the liberty of the people. In order to secure those rights (for example, free speech, religion, assembly, property, contract, etc.) the constitution establishs secondary "procedural rights" that were intended to safegaurd our liberties: i.e. representative democracy, the law, and the courts.

Many on the left believe in democratic process itself as our 'real rights' - as an end in itself and therefore it may provide a just route to a socialist society that denies all individual liberties (e.g. free speech, worship, etc.).

The constitution's real intent (a small government, assurance of liberty, etc.) has been destroyed by the democratic and judicial process. The anti-federalists were correct when they warned that even a democratic government can become an oppressor, that a constitution that merely says "all rights not expressed herein (the consitution) are reserved for the states and the people" would eventually fail. IT HAS.

The procedural 'safeguards' have turned against the very document. Judges are supposed to follow judicial restraint and protect our liberties - they laugh at that at the Surpeme Court. The consitution is supposed to be read as intended, not invented, they laugh at that also. The consitution limits the federal government to controlling interstate commerce - another joke as "anything produced anywhere that 'might' be sold (including the wheat in your backyard)" is now considered 'interstate commerce' and subject to federal regulation (and can be banned by federal agencies). Equal rights under the law (14th amendment) for white males is now ignored. Civil rights laws are 'reinterpeted' to exclude whites or males. Property for "public use" may now be taken for "public benefit (eg higher taxes)". Your property rights to live, build, plant, etc. is taken by zoning and local governments - without compensation. Taxes may be whatever the government wants...50, 75, 100%.

In other words, the Consitutions procedural safeguards has miserably failed to protect the basis of our republic. In fact, the consitution cannot be saved by the people because they have given so much power to the courts, any attempt to pass a law gets "overturned" at the whim of 5 lifetime mullahs.

What to do? You suggest 'hang in there' and use the ineffective procedures and courts to regain liberty - I say that the courts and procedures are too corrupted, and proven incapable of securing liberty. You suggest that protecting the consitution is protecting its failed democratic and judical procedures; I say saving the constitution is saving its purpose: liberties and rights, and ignoring those procedures which has already killed its meaning.

You believe in its form, I believe in its substance.

And while it may be unwise to be a revolutionary, to overthow a system that has usurped our liberty and abused our citizens we must remember that we have that right (and duty) to alter the government through violent means - a right established in the most MORAL document ever created by man, the Declaration of Independence (the touchstone to the constitution).

(Also, we should not forget that the Declaration of Independence was a declartion of violence, a violent defense of their rights as (soon to be) former Englishmen under the British Constitution. One could have argued that they should have waited (England was a nation of laws) till they got their British constitutional rights, but they believed they were actually defending that document by their violent act.)

Morally this is not even close to a South American Junta.

tacitus

03-03-2005, 06:36 PM

I just saw this thread, good thank God.

Someday when you grow up and have children and grandchildren maybe you'll appreciate what we have said here. God forbid that any of your children or grandchildren would be a victim of some murdering rapist, but if it happens you might change your mind.

Warlady

03-03-2005, 06:49 PM

AZScreamingEagle

03-03-2005, 07:00 PM

How many minors get executed? The 16 year old who gets the death penalty
is usually 33 before he gets his turn. I don't see what the big fuss is....this
ruling doesn't set TEENAGERS free, it sets free guys who are in their 40's, who
have been sitting on death row for years and according to one leading
judge, could lead to some of their sentences even being thrown out, so now
we have the possibility of murderers, hardened by years in the pen, being
set out on the streets, WOO-HOO, way to go Supreme Court. Liberals want to make this about the "children." They talk about other countries not
executing children.....well no duh, most of the countries they refer to, they
execute you the day after your sentencing. In this country it is years
and years, and before you know it, the 17 year old that stabbed his parents
to death, is pretty grizzly and haggard 37 years old..........how is that killing
children?

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-03-2005, 07:11 PM

Homeschool, the death penalty is a deterrant to crime as the murderer, once put to death, is guaranteed not to kill again. If they get life in prison there's always a chance they'll get out on a technicality or loophole...especially in lib states. Look at IL.

Oh Warlady, I certainly agree with you there!

I was referring to the anti-death penalty proponents who say that the death penalty isn't a deterent as a counter to death penalty advocates who say it is (that that is the main function of the death penalty). I don't believe the main focus of the death penalty should be on its deterent aspect, because I don't really think one person getting the death penalty will deter someone else from killing so as not to receive the same punishment. I believe death penalty advocates should promote it for what it really is -- punishment/consequences for committing a fatal crime. You kill, you will be killed.

I am COMPLETELY against life sentences for murderers. As far as I am concerned they forfeit their right to life when they take another's.

Incident_command

03-03-2005, 08:19 PM

Now I could be OK with life in prison with one stipulation. That is the convict spends 14 hours a day at hard labor. I mean back breaking, out in the hot sun, no end in sight, praying for death to come calling on a day to day basis. The other 10 hours a day should be as bad as possible also.
We debate about the death penalty not being a deterrent and due to the way its carried out there is some backing to it. If prison was a hell on earth it would deter not only murder but most other crimes.
IMO The death penalty is a deterent to youths only when they think they may get killed doing the crime, not sitting in a jail cell for 10 years waiting to walk the last mile. Execute the guys doing the crime within a year and do it publicly in their own hood in front of their fellow thugs and the local kids. Then you have a deterent.

shawnwood

03-03-2005, 11:54 PM

Boy, 14, shoots and kills school bus driver

A 14-year-old boy was taken into custody in the fatal shooting of a school bus driver as she drove her morning route in Tennessee.

About 20 students, ranging from kindergarten to 12th grade, were on the bus when the shooting happened.

Police say the shooter is a high school freshman.

It all started at 6:30 in the morning as students -- ranging in ages from 5 to 17 years old -- watched in horror as bus driver Joyce Gregory was shot to death.

More here (http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=3831&sectionID=1155)

So I heard that under some law in tennessess, this murderer could be out of jail when he is 19. He should be executed!

CzechPrince

03-04-2005, 02:01 AM

once put to death, is guaranteed not to kill again. If they get life in prison there's always a chance they'll get out on a technicality or loophole.

:dito: :claps: EXACTLY:claps: :dito:

Heck they could kill another inmate, prison guard, nurse, worker, doctor, etc.

DoctorDoom

03-04-2005, 05:49 AM

Believe me I still advocate the death penalty. I just don't think the specter of the death penalty stops many from murder.The DP was never meant to be a deterrent. The very phrase "death penalty" defines it as a punishment. No laws against crime deter crime, because criminals don't expect to be caught. The law only defines what constitutes crime and delineates the penalties for committing offenses.

However, the DP IS a deterrent insofar as the SOB who is executed will never again commit a crime.

<hr>
SLOW DOWN EVERYONE! Jeez back off! I am pro- life thats it.I am also pro-life, but only insofar as it involves the lives of innocent people. I have absolutely no qualms about putting a murdering PoS out of society's misery.

I'm not changing my views regardless of how disgusting a person is.IOW, you think that some drug-fried pile of dogshit who tortures people to death is worthy of care and respect. You are of course entitled to hold the view, but I for one find it richly satisfying when said monster receives his/her just deserts.

I think our prison system needs to toughen up and bring back just bread and water for murderers. Bring back the chain gang. No TV, no Free college education. make prison hard.Devil's Island MIGHT be a worthwhile substitute, but the bleeding-heart liberals would whine because the bastards don't have soft beds, imported breads and Perrier to drink.

But we as humans do not have the right regardless of how we feel to take another person's life.However, the state DOES have that right in response to crimes that warrant it. Check your Bible. The prohibitions against killing are for individuals.

You cannot teach people killing is wrong by killing.Who, exactly, are you teaching that killing — or more precisely, murder — is wrong? Does any person living in a civilized culture NOT know that murder is wrong? I'll repeat my previous point: the death penalty is not intended to educate people about the wrongness of murder; it is to punish people who commit murder. Any instructive effect is coincidental.

I quite frankly I dont want the blood of another human being on any upstanding prison worker's hands.You might want to talk with prison workers who deal with the scum of the earth every day how they feel about pulling the switch on the monsters. And IAC, the prisons don't randomly pick someone from the staff to do the deed.

<hr>
The death penalty does not have a self defense motive, it has a revenge motive, that is what makes it immoral.It is not defensive and it is not vengeful. It is vindicatory and retributive. It is the state's right in response to the criminal who knowingly commits crimes for which the DP is the specified response. It is justice.

<hr>
Wolfie you are oozing in revenge...this is why I dont like the thought of killing people. You are wise; but here it is clear your emotions are ruling your mind.We as citizens have the freedom to fantasize about what should be done with subhuman sewage. I do it myself when I read about a piece of shit who tortures a 14-month-old girl to death. However, the state has the authority, after a trial has determined beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is indeed guilty of a capital offense, to carry out the punishment for the crime. If anything, far too few of the human-shaped bags of maggot droppings are actually subjected to the consequences of their actions, exactly because whining, whimpering liberals think it's cruel and unusual punishment to put a needle in the arm of a son of a bitch whose victims died in protracted agony.

Sister Prez, if you don't want to be involved in the DP, we all respect that. However, there are "people" out there who richly merit the termination of their worthless lives, and I would in some particularly nighmarish cases pay for the privilege of offing them.

PrezLeefun

03-04-2005, 06:00 AM

Kinda touchy ain't ya Prez baby? I rebutted your "explanation" and all you can do is get snippy........I know you are entitled to your opinion as I AM ENTITLED TO MINE! You're coming off as a screaming liberal.......rebut MY opinions or STFU! Deal with it yourself!

First off you were incredibly "snippy" yourself. Second I am not a liberal, but I do not have be "conservative" 100% of the time. So how you take your advice and shut the **** up. ok?

Pennville_Bill

03-04-2005, 06:49 AM

Texas Couple Accused of Abusing Baby Tuesday, February 08, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="262"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="20"> <tbody><tr> <td id="photo" onclick="storyTab('photo',1);" style="border-left: 1px solid black; background-color: black; color: rgb(255, 204, 0);">PHOTOS</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="220"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0px 0px 5px 5px;">http://www.foxnews.com/images/153230/0_41_norman_donna_marie.jpg (javascript:photoPop('153230/0_21_norman_donna_marie.jpg','A police photo shows Donna Marie Norman.','AP',350,450);)</td><td style="padding: 0px 0px 5px 5px;">http://www.foxnews.com/images/153230/0_42_castaneda_ivan.jpg (javascript:photoPop('153230/0_22_castaneda_ivan.jpg','A police photo shows Ivan Castaneda.','AP',350,450);)</td><td style="padding: 0px 0px 5px 5px;">
</td><td style="padding: 0px 0px 5px 5px;">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" style="padding-left: 5px; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Click image to enlarge</td></tr></tbody></table>

<script language="JavaScript">writeScroll(openTab1,'1');</script> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="20"> <tbody><tr> <td id="story" onclick="storyTab('story',2);" style="border-left: 1px solid black; background-color: black; color: rgb(255, 204, 0);">STORIES</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
•
Couple Accused of Torture Awaits Hearing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146642,00.html)

•
Alabama Mom Admits to Starving Kids to Death (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146513,00.html)

<script language="JavaScript">writeScroll(openTab2,'2');</script>
</td></tr> </tbody></table> HOUSTON — A young couple are accused of critically injuring their 6-month-old baby, who police say was sexually assaulted, suffered broken bones from head to toe, and had her tongue nearly severed.

Donna Marie Norman, 19, and her common-law husband, Ivan Castaneda, 21, were jailed without bail on charges of causing injury to a child.

The infant lay in critical condition Monday at a hospital. She was transferred there last week after her parents brought her to another hospital, saying she was suffering from congestion.

Child Protective Services (search (javascript:siteSearch('Child Protective Services');)) spokeswoman Estella Olguin said the baby had been sexually abused, had two broken legs, a broken arm, a fractured skull, a fractured vertebrae and a broken rib.

"Just about every vital organ in this child's body has damage to it," said Houston police Sgt. Randall Upton. "This child endured probably some of the most incredible amount of pain that one could imagine."

Olguin said that if the little girl survives she could be blind or paralyzed.

link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146701,00.html

I got no problem giving these two pcs. of shit the big needle.