Conference back40::soapbox

    it's a crime that there isn't always enough punishment

    it's a crime the two aren't related in this country...
    
    

Lawyers are scumbags.

I second that emotion.

    
    RE: .3
    
    
    >Lawyers are scumbags.
    
    
    
      Not if you cook em right....

  Crime, the lesser evil when compared to the police state.

  George

                      <<< Note 44.6 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Crime, the lesser evil when compared to the police state.

	Something must be shorting out. I actually agree with George.

	But we should note that crime is the excuse that the government
	will use for CREATING a police state.

Jim

    re: .8
    
    Yup.  It's working, too.

    Hull, Que. (CP) - Pierre Theriault has become the latest accused to
    beat an assault charge using the Supreme Court's contoversial "drunk
    defence" ruling.  The 37-year-old Gatineau man was found not guilty
    of beating and threatening to kill his wife after he testified that
    a large intake of cocaine had made him unconscious of his actions.
    Defence witness Dr. Frances Groulx testified that the cocaine put
    Theriault in a psychological state similar to temporary insanity.

    He was aquitted Wednesday on the basis of the Supreme Court's Sept.
    30th decision overturning Henri Daviault's conviction of sexually
    assaulting a woman in a wheelchair.  The high court ruled that 
    Daviault should have been allowed to use the defence that he was
    drunk to the point of insanity.

    Justice Minister Allan Rock is planning changes to the Criminal Code
    to make it harder to use the intoxication defence.

    
    i have to admit that i thought the canadian woman who said that
    canada tolerates violence against women was just blowing smoke
    (the sexism topic), but it seems she has a point.  this is truly
    bizzare.  

    Seems common sense is out the window everywhere.  I think it would
    be a safe bet that people committing violence upon others while
    under the influence of whatever (cocaine or alcohol) didn't get
    "sick" or "addicted" overnight.  Perhaps if people suffered more
    serious legal consequences the first time their addictions caused
    them to act out they would seek help sooner.
    
    I don't envy people with addictions, but it's one thing to sit in a
    corner somewhere and drink yourself blind and ruin your own health;
    but the first time you lift your hand against someone else you *should*
    pay a penalty.
    
    I thought most penal systems had programs to provide help to inmates
    with substance abuse problems; why are we suddenly starting to see
    these ridiculous verdicts being rendered?
    
    If juries keep releasing people from accepting the consequences of
    *what* they did while under the influence *because* they were under the
    influence, they are setting up a lot of innocent people for a world
    of hurt :-(
    
    Some of you who keep preaching that the rest of us should stop assuming
    people are guilty until they are "officially" judged so by a jury will
    someday understand why many of us have lost faith in the jury system!!
    

Note 44.11 by DECLNE::REESE
    
    >>Seems common sense is out the window everywhere.  I think it would
    
    
    ain't that the truth!!!!

    Re: .9
    
    	And when he finnaly kills her everyone will scream for justice and
    tougher laws. 
    
    What a joke. 
    
    When will we learn?
    
    Dave

    CLEVELAND (Reuter) - A local judge invited television news crews to
    broadcast the February, 1995 execution of a convicted killer, the
    Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper reported yesterday.  

    "Since we have everything else on TV, let this be shown so the public
    can see there is swift and certain punishment," Cuyahoga County Judge
    Anthony Calabrese Jr. said in sentencing a local man Wednesday for two
    shooting deaths. 

    Another judge on the same court said the execution is unlikely to occur
    in 1995 because death-penalty appeals generally take 6 to 8 years.  He
    added that the legality of televised executions is questionable.

    the liberals and media like to use the excuse that its not even
    economically feasable to waste killers citing a $2 million figure for
    executing someone. what they don't mention is the majority of those
    costs are incurred during lengthy appeals. those accused of murder one
    should move right to the front of trial backlog. if found guilty, given
    one appeal which MUST be settled within 60 days. if the appeal fails
    the person should swing within 72 hours.
    
    the murder rate would plumment within 1 year of mandating this
    punishment.

    <- Absolutely correct. The system piles up the cost. I'd go one
       step further... Improve the system's productivity by in-
       stituting a hearing that "approves" an appeal. 
    
       We all know that there are the "guilty as sin" people appealing
       for time, reduced sentences, chuckles... Waste of time & $$$$'s.
    
       Chip

  I saw a TV documentary a couple years back something like "The Thin Blue
Line" or some such thing in which the State of Texas convicted an innocent man
of murder and sentenced him to death. During those "endless" appeals evidence
turned up showing that he was innocent. 

  Had the State of Texas been allowed the quick execution mentioned a few notes
back, that innocent man would be dead today. 

  George 

	I saw an article on TV this weekend that puts the cost for
the death sentence at 2-4 Million per prisoner. This is mostly due
to the special appeals process and all the legal cost associated
with it. On the other hand it is far less expensive for a life
imprisonment.

	Interesting, because the article suggested that when tax
payers are faced with these costs, suddenly the death penalty is
not that important.

	If faced with the choice of higher taxes and the death
penalty, or life in prison..........The almighty dollar wins.

    
    RE: .17
    

    The difference (BIG) between the story based on the Thin Blue Line
    and Smith is that in one we have a confession, the other, none.
    
    I don't believe anyone is condoning abolishing the appeals procedure,
    just the ridiculous extremes (and individuals) it is carried too.
    
    And what if the death penalty saves a murderer from repeating his
    offense? Two sides (devil's advocate)...

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
Note 44.17 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  I saw a TV documentary a couple years back something like "The Thin Blue
>Line" or some such thing in which the State of Texas convicted an innocent man
>of murder and sentenced him to death. During those "endless" appeals evidence
>turned up showing that he was innocent. 
>
>  Had the State of Texas been allowed the quick execution mentioned a few notes
>back, that innocent man would be dead today. 

    old as the hills defense george. let me pose the question i always pose
    when this comes up. let's look at punishment in general. its common
    fact that repeat offenders cause the vast majority of crime. especially
    serious crime. the system is geared HEAVILY towards the criminals under
    the guise of "we want to be fair. we don't want to prosecute the
    innocent". with that philosophy, which you are advocating (apparently),
    we let LOTS of bad guys on the street to kill and maime again and
    again. 
    
    now if we look at my position, one of very harsh, very swift
    punishment, you ask if punishing of innocents would occur. i say yes.
    its unavoidable. but answer this:
    
     "is it accpetable to let thousands of criminals back on the streets
      to kill and maime again and again too try and avoid the punishment
      of an innocent????".
    
    acceptable loses i say. and don't ask me how i would feel if it was me
    or a member of my family that, while innocent, was punished. i've
    already stated that i accpet those risks. i also accept the risk of
    getting hit on the head with a meteor without losing any sleep.
 

    
    Actually, almost none of the death penalty appeals are of the form,
    'I'm innocent, I didn't do it.'  They are more of the form, 'the
    Court failed to follow federally mandated procedures.'
    
      bb
    

RE                     <<< Note 44.20 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    And what if the death penalty saves a murderer from repeating his
>    offense? Two sides (devil's advocate)...

  In most states, if a jury finds the defendant guilty of murder with special
circumstances, the choices are death or life without parole. If someone is
locked up for the rest of their life without a chance of being released, the
general public is just as safe as if they are dead.

  Conversely, a short appeal process would mean that more innocent people would
be put to death.

  So it appears that the "if it saves one life" argument, works better for
those in favor of appeals than it does for those against.

  George

    On the other hand haag, the gentlemen who was scheduled to be
    executed was coerced into "confessing".  See, he was a black fellow,
    and if he didn't confess he'd be found hanging in the woods upside down
    bare-arsed.  And I would believe him for thinking this way.  DNA
    tests later proved, without a doubt, he could not have committed the
    crime he alledgedly did.  
    
    Now, put Gene Haag into that persons shoes and see if you want the 
    system to work.  I know I would.
    
    

Note 44.25 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK 
    
    >On the other hand haag, the gentlemen who was scheduled to be
    >executed was coerced into "confessing".  See, he was a black fellow,
    >and if he didn't confess he'd be found hanging in the woods upside down
    >bare-arsed.  And I would believe him for thinking this way.  DNA
    >tests later proved, without a doubt, he could not have committed the
    >crime he alledgedly did.  
    
    i admitted there will be mistakes. i accept the risks associated with
    living under a more fair and equitable system. letting 2,000 guilty out
    to rape and kill again, all to save one, is not acceptable.

    
    I have a serious question.  How many persons convicted of offences for
    which they could have been executed were instead given prison terms, 
    eventually released, and then killed again?  You can include escapees
    as well, if you wish, since the principle is the same.
    

    
    No...I'm asking for stats, if anyone has them, to show that the capital
    punishment actually makes society safer than life sentences.
    

    
    Stats !   Bwahahaha...  Of course, I can prove either side with
    stats.  Crime rate is much lower in Saudi Arabia or China, with
    immediate death as a penalty.
    
    Oops, let me prove it the other way.  Crime rate is higher in Texas
    than Arizona.
    
    For that matter, what would you like me to prove with (shudder)
    stats ?
    
      bb

    
    .30:
    
    >i admitted there will be mistakes. i accept the risks associated with
    >living under a more fair and equitable system. letting 2,000 guilty out
    >to rape and kill again, all to save one, is not acceptable.
    
    In the above statement Haag obviously pulled some numbers out of a hat
    to illustrate his point.  What I am getting at here is...what is the
    REAL ratio?  Probably not 2000:1, eh?  I'm asking because I don't know
    the answer, and I figured the folks in here with their FBI crime stats
    can provide a more accurate illustration.
    

    I'm not saying let 2000 bad guys walk, just don't fry one innocent person.
    This is unacceptable.  IMO: I think if our prisons were a little
    tougher, it would be worse to be locked up forever in solitary than
    to face your Maker in a timely maner.
    
    As it is today, prisoners get all sorts of amusements and recreation.
    Stick 'em in a cell by themselves with nothing and they'll go friggin
    crazy and wish they were dead. 

	Put them to work in Uranium mines or something like
that. Send them to the moon to start a new moon colony, they can
dig themselves to death up there. I agree, what do they need TV
for. To keep up on society, why ?, they are no longer part of
society.

	Make them work to pay for their incarceration.....

RE      <<< Note 44.27 by TROOA::COLLINS "Not Phil, not Tom, not Joan..." >>>

>    I have a serious question.  How many persons convicted of offences for
>    which they could have been executed were instead given prison terms, 
>    eventually released, and then killed again?  You can include escapees
>    as well, if you wish, since the principle is the same.
    
  These stats would be hard to gather because of a "before" and "after"
problem. 

  Up until a few years ago parole boards were very lenient and would often let
convicted murderers lose on parole. Some of them killed again. 

  Today, most states have a "life without parole" sentence that is given either
as an alternative to having a death penalty or in cases where "special
circumstances" are proven but the death penalty is not given. 

  It is unlikely that any of these people will escape or be released. If
one of them did escape it is unlikely that they would not be recaptured.

  It is very likely that some innocent person will be put to death with the
laws as they currently are and if appeals are curtailed that number would
very likely go up.

  George

| Make them work to pay for their incarceration.....

	They have to pay to cast spells????

	If a prisoner has a life sentence, and is held to it, then that person
is off the streets. It would cost less for this person to be housed than it
would for an execution. And we got plenty of room in this country for more
prisons. The deserts would make a great place for a prison.


Glen

	Agreed glen, but let's make good use of them. Let them
operate some industry we free individuals don't want to but need
so that they return equal value to society as the cost to house them.

    
    I have no problem putting inmates to work, but what often happens is
    that some businessperson or union will complain that the prison labour
    is unfair competition.
    

	That's why I said to give them work nobody else wants. Or
something that is dangerous to their health that regulations would
not let us do. Let them process asbestos, pack radioactive waste,
whatever...............

  The cost of having prisoners do work often exceeds the return on investment. 

  First of all, most criminals in prison are only qualified to do unskilled
work that can be done better by a machine in an automated environment. 

  As for skilled jobs, some times it's more hassle than it's worth giving
criminals advanced tools then monitoring them to see that they don't use those
tools to escape or commit more crimes. 

  For example do you really want someone in jail for grand larceny via computer
hacking to have access to the internet? 

  George 

	Teekema, I'm with you on the work part. And yes, the work that will
help but people don't want to do is fine. But for radioactive/asbestos stuff,
it might cost more for equipment and training than what it's worth. Plus this
stuff would have to be treked to the prisons and stuff. 

    
    Teekema,
    
    Well, you did say you want them to do work that pays for their room and
    board, right?  Well, there ain't too many money-making enterprises that
    aren't already being exploited by *someone*, somewhere.  If you simply
    want to give them dangerous, but non-lucrative work, well...I think
    that's unlikely to ever happen.
    

	Well Glen, I wasn't being kind and giving them high-tech
equipment for this kind of stuff. Since they have forgone their
rights by violating those of others, I wouldn't bother with
protecting their health with high cost measures, cheap measures
sure.

    If prison lawsuits are a problem now... just think what it would be
    like if prisoners were forced to work under hazardous circumstances...
    
    -b

	RE .42

	I am sure we can come up with something they can do below minimum
wage. Stop the exploitation of minorities or illegal immagrants, let the
prisoners do it.

	There must be work we can create that we just wouldn't do other
wise because it is too expensive. What about building parks and cleaning
the environment ??

Radioactive/asbestos stuff leads to lingering illnesses.

	RE .44

	That's because prisoners have the same rights as the rest
of us while still in prison. I disagree with this. There should 
be a separate set of rights for them that would not them to
file lawsuits only for un-humane treatment or abuse. I'm sure
there is a line there somewhere that the lawyers, or Gene, can
draw.

  Having prisoners work with hazardous materials is out of the question. For
one thing it's an 8th amendment violation. Then there's the problem that
prisoners are probably the last group of people to whom you would want to hand
over hazardous materials. 

  And don't forget the guards who have to watch these guys. What happens when
some convicted "mother stabber or father raper" smuggles a jar of toxic goo
back to his cell then dumps it all over the guard the next morning? 

  No, it's most cost justified to have the lifers cooling their heals and
watching TV. It's cheap and when you do have to release one 10 years later
when you find he is innocent you are less likely to have created a basket
case that you are required by law to turn lose on society.

  George 

    
    Think about it Teekema...what work can we give to prisoners that will:
    
    - not cost more to administer than it will return to the system
    
    - not unfairly deprive law-abiding citizens of their livelihood
    
    - not qualify as cruel or unusual 
    
    If you can think of something that satisfies the above criteria, write
    to your congresscritter! :*)
    

    We're starting to get to scarey stuff now, wether it's prison labor,
    or workfare, or whatever... it reminds me of a place that said
    
    "WORK WILL SET YOU FREE" on the gate.
    
    re: prisoners, I say make them as self sufficient as possible.  Little
    farming communities out in the middle of nowhere.  Also, possibly 
    charge them room and board if they have the resources for it.  Now
    these crooks who "make money" (movie rights, etc...) can have their
    cash garnished or whatever.

	As in my note .47 George. I don't subsribe to the notion
that prisoners should be entitled to the same rights as we are.
After all, they are the ones who violated them and chose not to
respect them for others.
	They have in my mind given up those rights......

re:                <<< Note 44.36 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

> It would cost less for this person to be housed than it
> would for an execution.

Let's not distort the facts. It is NOT true that it's less costly to house
a prisoner for life than it is to execute them. It is true that housing
them is less costly than the avaerage cost to execute UNDER TODAY'S
SYSTEM, which includes multiple appelas and heavy court/legal costs. A
streamlined system, free of appeals, which executes swiftly after a conviction
would be far less costly than long-term incarceration.

>  No, it's most cost justified to have the lifers cooling their heals and
>watching TV. It's cheap and when you do have to release one 10 years later
>when you find he is innocent you are less likely to have created a basket
>case that you are required by law to turn lose on society.

Now there's a brilliant bit of logic by which to model your life and the
lives of others . . . .

    Re: .52
    
    >A streamlined system, free of appeals, which executes swiftly after a 
    >conviction
    
    would not be a justice system.  Appeals have a valid role in the legal
    system; judges are not always objective and unbiased.

	Did anyone see the 60 minutes segment about a guy on
death row who is asking to be put to death but his lawyers
continue to file appeals on his behalf.
	It is the lenghty appeals, lawyers, judges etc..
costs that make a death sentence cost tax payers more than
a life sentence. So it we are worried we will send an innocent
man to his death, send him/her in for life.

	However, don't stop there, start building sites where
we can truly house them cheaply for life. I like th idea of
out in the desert.

    
    Well, if he really wants to die, I'm sure he could provoke one of his
    fellow inmates into performing the dirty deed...
    

	He was placed in solitary after a scuff with some inmate
or something, I don't remember. Once in solitary he reflected on
his life and decided he wanted to die. His lawyers are not
following his wishes. He is pleading guilty but the lawyers continue
to enter "not guilty" for him.

	Some great system we have here.........

  That's not "the system", that again is one isolated case. 

  Again, in a nation of 250,000,000 people you can come up with anecdotal
evidence to prove most anything. The vast majority of death row inmates who
stop appeals get their execution with little problem.

  Most likely this case will be straightened out by the Circuit Court of
Appeals in January.

  George

Note 44.27 by TROOA::COLLINS 
    
    >I have a serious question.  How many persons convicted of offences for
    >which they could have been executed were instead given prison terms, 
    >eventually released, and then killed again?  You can include escapees
    >as well, if you wish, since the principle is the same.
    
    yeah. i made my numbers up. but i think i have a much better chance of
    being picked up by aliens then being executed for a crime i didn't
    commit.
    
    as for your serious question. i think you're looking for the wrong
    number. a more telling stat would be the one that gave us the number of
    people convicted of murder or rape that were let free to commit the
    crime again. those stats are available in some states. they are
    apalling. i believe in FL 70+% of the rapists and murderers that are 
    turned lose in society rape and murder again.
    
    we can't just count the criminals who were convicted of crimes
    punishable by death sentences. most murder cases are plea bargained
    down to a lesser charge - maybe murder 2, or manslaughter. they STILL
    are guilty of killing or someone.

      <<< Note 44.27 by TROOA::COLLINS "Not Phil, not Tom, not Joan..." >>>

    
>    I have a serious question.  How many persons convicted of offences for
>    which they could have been executed were instead given prison terms, 
>    eventually released, and then killed again?  You can include escapees
>    as well, if you wish, since the principle is the same.
    
    I don't have the statistics you requested.  The closest I can get is 
    from _The_Statistical_Abstract_of_the_United_States_1993_ (113th edition)
    by the U.S. Department of Commerce (page 212):

                                1980    1985    1990    1991

    under sentence of death      668   1,575   2,346   2,482
    on parole or probation       115     350     578     128
    in prison or escaped          45      81     128     102

    Note that these statistics reflect only those individuals who are 
    awaiting execution.  An individual may have committed murder, but if 
    that person was not sentenced to die and awaiting execution, then that 
    person will not be counted here.

    Also note that while the number of felons on parole or probabtion appear
    to be committing fewer capital crimes, these statistics do not appear to 
    reflect the number of capital cases by individuals who committed violent
    prior offences as juveniles, since juvenile felons are not on parole or 
    probabtion when they are released upon reaching the age of emmancipation 
    (21 in most states).  Furthermore, when they are released at that age, 
    their criminal records are often sealed.

    Other numbers I found interesting, from the same source (page 213):

                                1930-39   1940-49   1990   1991

    total executed                1,667     1,284     23     14
    total executed for murder     1,514     1,064     23     14
    total executed for rape         125       200      0      0
    

   >                             1930-39   1940-49   1990   1991
   >
   > total executed                1,667     1,284     23     14
   > total executed for murder     1,514     1,064     23     14
   > total executed for rape         125       200      0      0
    
    seems to me that as executions dropped dramatically the percentage of
    those raping and murdering have climed dramatically. just a guess.

            <<< Note 44.59 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    as for your serious question. i think you're looking for the wrong
>    number. a more telling stat would be the one that gave us the number of
>    people convicted of murder or rape that were let free to commit the
>    crime again. those stats are available in some states. they are
>    apalling. i believe in FL 70+% of the rapists and murderers that are 
>    turned lose in society rape and murder again.

    Yes, the probabilities for repeat rapists is particularly high.

    
>    we can't just count the criminals who were convicted of crimes
>    punishable by death sentences. most murder cases are plea bargained
>    down to a lesser charge - maybe murder 2, or manslaughter. they STILL
>    are guilty of killing or someone.

    I agree.  This is a particularly sticky issue with juvenile crime.
    According to the Bureau of the Census, the median prison sentence for
    murder in 1992 -- as measured in time served -- was less than six years.
    For rape, the median time served was about three years.

    The number of repeat offenders who don't show up on death row must be 
    quite substantial.

    
    Kevin, thanks for those stats.
    
    Haag, I gotta go home and eat food...I'll get back to you later...
    
    jc
    

to TROOA::COLLINS
    
    >Haag, I gotta go home and eat food...I'll get back to you later...
    
   lawrdy mercy sakes. don't let something like soapbox get in the way of
    sustinance. your startin' to sound like yer hooked on this crap. :-)
    

| <<< Note 44.43 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>


| Well Glen, I wasn't being kind and giving them high-tech equipment for this 
| kind of stuff. Since they have forgone their rights by violating those of 
| others, I wouldn't bother with protecting their health with high cost measures
| cheap measures sure.

	Let me ask you something. A bunch of people are handling toxic waste,
or radioactive material. You hear that the company only used cheap measures to
protect them. Are you upset by this? If yes, why would you even think of
letting it happen to a prisoner? Oh, I do understand that they have given up
their right to FREEDOM because of the crime they committed, but that doesn't
mean that for the time period their freedom is gone, that their health should
be put at risk. Or are you only suggesting this type of stuff for those who
have life sentences? Either way it stinks, but that's just my opinion. Oh yeah,
why don't you try to get in earlier. I heard they are going to make those who
are late work in the chemical rooms with cheap protection measures. :-)



Glen

| <<< Note 44.45 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>



| I am sure we can come up with something they can do below minimum wage. 

	Making license plates comes to mind. :-) 

| There must be work we can create that we just wouldn't do otherwise because 
| it is too expensive. What about building parks and cleaning the environment ??

	Yeah, let them out on the streets. :-)  Teekema, building parks and
cleaning the enviroment need qualified people. The grunt work that's needed 
would go to those who still have their freedom. I think it would cause a lot of
problems if they were to do things like that. And please get to work a little
earlier, would you?


Glen

	Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahw, Glen, hurt me some more.....................

	Ah, now I am awake. Thanks I needed that.


	I was refering to lifers only and agree it stinks. But if we are 
going to clean up toxins to save ourselves and have to do it cheaply,
I would rather use prioners than law abiding or socially oppressed
people.

| <<< Note 44.51 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>


| As in my note .47 George. I don't subsribe to the notion that prisoners should
| be entitled to the same rights as we are. After all, they are the ones who 
| violated them and chose not to respect them for others. They have in my mind 
| given up those rights......

	The right to freedom, yes. With that I agree. Maybe you could go a
little deeper into what rights you want to see go away? It's good thing you're
on the outside Teekema, or you wouldn't be allowed to come in late so often...


Glen

	Why come in on time ?, you guys seem to have everything
under control Glen............... %^)

	Glen, I believe they give up more than just their right
to freedom. If all they violated was someone elses rights to freedom
then maybe. These are folks who took lives or other terrible crimes
which violated much more than a persons freedom.

	Yes, it is easy talking from the outside, but then I am not
violating anyones rights. However, I am being violated everytime I
have to take measures to protect myself and my family against those
who don't give a damn about rights untill they find themselves in jail.

| <<< Note 44.52 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


| Let's not distort the facts. 

	I'm not distorting the facts. It is cheaper to let them stay in for
life, than to execute them. Plain and simple. You see, we are living with
TODAY'S system today. I know that might be hard to understand, but really, it's
quite simple. :-)  So distorting the facts? No, because that is the way it is.

	You are correct though that a streamline system would make it cheaper.
But I'm not sure the states are at a point where they would consider a measure
that takes away appeals. You may be able to get them to start cutting them
down, but you know as soon as they do, it will be tied up in the courts sytem
for years. But if it's something any of the states want bad enough, then they
will push forward and try and make the changes anyway. Maybe it would happen,
maybe it wouldn't.

	For me, it doesn't make sense for a country that see's murder as wrong,
to go out and murder. But that's just *my* opinion.


Glen

| <<< Note 44.59 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| i believe in FL 70+% of the rapists and murderers that are turned lose in 
| society rape and murder again.

	Gene, glad to see the numbers for a specific area. I wonder, is it 70%
of the rapist AND 70% of those who murder? OR, is it 70% of the combo? My guess
would be the rapist would have the highest instance of repeating their crimes.
I heard, anyway, those who go thru some program to make them non-rapists seem
to still rape. What it does do is allows them to get out early from prison.
Parole should NOT happen for ANY crime. 


Glen

| <<< Note 44.67 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>


| Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahw, Glen, hurt me some more.....................

	We'll have to go out to your van for that.... and there is a fire drill
at 10:00!

| I was refering to lifers only and agree it stinks. But if we are going to 
| clean up toxins to save ourselves and have to do it cheaply, I would rather 
| use prioners than law abiding or socially oppressed people.

	Saving ourselves money initially, but what expense would happen down
the road? Like someone else already stated, a little goo for the gaurds could
be costly. And the gaurds, who would have to supervise this, do they get
minimal safety gear, or do we spend more money to suit them up? And what of the
lawsuits that you know would happen, and which someone else brought up earlier.
It would cost us much more in the end, and I'm sure there would be far more
accidents.


Glen

| <<< Note 44.70 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>


| Glen, I believe they give up more than just their right to freedom. 

	How bout a list?

| Yes, it is easy talking from the outside, but then I am not violating anyones 
| rights. 

	You're violating my right to not hear you. :-)

	Well first we deal with this "rights for prisoners"
nonsense. As I indicated earlier they will not have the right
to sue because they don't like the work. 

	We will have to suit someone up to do this messy job,
let it be them. If we lose a few to cancer or what ever, so what ?

	Glen , how am I violating your right not to "hear" me ??

	You are free to press "next unseen" or exit the box anytime.
	No one is forcing you !!!!    %^)

	Now if I strapped you in a chair with tooth picks holding
you eyes open and kept flashing my infinte wisdom in front of you,
(ooh, Glan this sounds like fun !!!- see you outside during the fire
drill) then you might have a point.		%^) %^) %^)



	But seriosly, the first issue is what rights should these
criminals have ???. I say the less the better.

    Is money the only issue?  Or is space now an issue?
    
    Sure it is cheaper to keep them in jail forever, but what about the 
    people who are released because of lack of space, what about the 
    new buildings that need to be built?  Is it really cheaper?
    
    
    Rick   Just my 2 sense  8*)

    
    Note 44.64, HAAG:
    
    >lawrdy mercy sakes. don't let something like soapbox get in the way of
    >sustinance. your startin' to sound like yer hooked on this crap. :-)

    ...sad, but true.  It's a drag, you know.  My work and personal life
    are starting to interfere with Soapbox.  :*)
    
    44.59:
    
    >we can't just count the criminals who were convicted of crimes
    >punishable by death sentences. most murder cases are plea bargained
    >down to a lesser charge - maybe murder 2, or manslaughter. they STILL
    >are guilty of killing or someone.

    Well...if we are trying to establish that the death penalty will make
    society safer than lifetime incarceration, than only the crimes punish-
    able by the death penalty can be validly included in this debate.
    Remember that regardless of plea bargaining, a person can only be
    punished for the crime they have been convicted of.  Would you support
    the death penalty for manslaughter?  I wouldn't.

    Below, you say:

    >>                            1930-39   1940-49   1990   1991

    >>total executed                1,667     1,284     23     14
    >>total executed for murder     1,514     1,064     23     14
    >>total executed for rape         125       200      0      0
    
    >seems to me that as executions dropped dramatically the percentage of
    >those raping and murdering have climed dramatically. just a guess.

    But from those same stats, you see that the number of people on death
    row has actually increased over the last 14 years:

    >>                            1980    1985    1990    1991

    >>under sentence of death      668   1,575   2,346   2,482
    >>on parole or probation       115     350     578     128
    >>in prison or escaped          45      81     128     102

    Have murders dropped during that period?  Not according to you. I
    seriously doubt that anyone committing a murder is planning on getting
    caught, so the death penalty is not likely to be a deterrent.  You
    yourself have stated that you'd rather be executed than live the rest
    of your life in prison.  So would I, for that matter.

    As well, we have to remember that a drop in executions over 60-odd
    years coupled with a rise in murders during that same period is not
    necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship.  Would could just as 
    easily state that the rise of computers has precipitated the higher 
    murder rate, or the proliferation of televisions, or telephones, or the
    rise in divorce rates.

    When it comes to capital punishment, I find myself about 2/3 opposed,
    and 1/3 in favour, but...

    So far I remain unconvinced that the execution of an innocent person
    is an acceptable loss in the war against crime.  If it is wrong for a
    robber to blow away a gas station clerk, then it is equally wrong for
    the state to execute an innocent person.  You claim that the likelihood
    is slim, but `The Thin Blue Line' illustrates just one example of how
    this can happen. There are others, as you know.

    jc

    P.S. I know I'll never sway you on this, Gene.  Better minds than
         mine have tried and failed.  :*)
     

    
    
    jc,
    
    But the key is that howamny have been put to death.  If you look at the
    number of people who are one death row and compare it to the number who
    have been put to death, you see that the chances (percentagewise) of
    you getting put to death even if you are sentenced to death are
    becoming less and less.
    
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 44.75 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>


| As I indicated earlier they will not have the right to sue because they don't 
| like the work.

	If it's work that endangers their lives, they would be able to sue. It
would be like any prison who abuse their prisoners. 

| We will have to suit someone up to do this messy job, let it be them. If we 
| lose a few to cancer or what ever, so what ?

	You must want to see this topic fly off the handle Teekema! But ya
still haven't addressed the security issues. How about you start with them, and
we'll work our way up to cancer...

| <<< Note 44.76 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Barney made me do it !!" >>>


| Glen , how am I violating your right not to "hear" me ?? You are free to press
| "next unseen" or exit the box anytime. No one is forcing you !!!!    %^)

	Teekema... think just for a minute. How can I HEAR you in the box? The
answer is simple, I can't. It's these constant meetings in the hall when you
talk to me! :-)

| Now if I strapped you in a chair with tooth picks holding you eyes open and 
| kept flashing my infinte wisdom in front of you,

	You call that thing you flash wisdom? I call it a joke!

| (ooh, Glan 

	Who's Glan?

| But seriosly, the first issue is what rights should these criminals have ???. 
| I say the less the better.

	I had asked you to point out which ones.... but ya must have missed
that one, eh?

| <<< Note 44.77 by RIKSTR::COTE >>>


| Is money the only issue?  Or is space now an issue?

| Sure it is cheaper to keep them in jail forever, but what about the
| people who are released because of lack of space, what about the
| new buildings that need to be built?  Is it really cheaper?

	Rick, in the last version of the 'box this was addressed. If prisons
are built where there are few people, like in the desserts, midwest and such,
then we take the ones who have committed the worst crimes, and put them in
these places. Then this will free up space for those who commit lesser crimes
in any state to be able to stay in jail.


Glen

    In an amazing coincidence, the latest _People_ profiles four people who
    were convicted of crimes they didn't commit.  False eyewitness
    testimony is a big factor; so is incompetent defense.  The one that
    stands out is a guy who was convicted of rape; they recovered semen
    containing sperm from the victim's clothing, but the suspect had had a
    vasectomy.  The defense lawyer mentioned it once in passing.

    
    .79, Mike,
    
    True, but I doubt that killers stop to assess their statistical
    likelihood of being executed before committing their crimes. If 
    anything, the possibility of being blown away by the intended victim
    is (IMHO) more likely to deter a killer than the death penalty.
    
    jc
    

    
         .84  I agree with that. They look more for someone weaker that they
    feel can't fight back. 
          (IMHO)
       
        Rosie

    
    
    
    RE: jc,
    
    
    Excellent point, however, I think that the criminals do feel first,
    that they won't get cought and second if they do get cought, they will
    get off or get off fairly light.
    
    
    
    Mike

re .88

Yabbut he was eligible for parole in 2047.

Mebbe now (if convicted of this murder) they'll move that out to 2048.

/john

    <- Or pull it in to 2000...

	give him early release!!!

    ... perhaps a "get out of jail free" card.

  I don't think you want that guy released. Dahmer might not be the only guy he
attacked, they are saying he nearly killed another inmate as well. 

  George

	Maybe he can be moved to a cell with a view.....%^)

	So Glen, where were we ???

	I can't keep track anymore. Prisoner Rights, oh yeah,
Basically take them all away and only give them some basic rights
like food, shelter, medical care, something to prevent abuse or
torture......etc.. Don't see a need for much more.

  They should have the right to pursue the case that landed them in jail.

  Otherwise, how would someone who came across evidence of their innocence
get a new trial?

  George

	I'll agree to that. I would make a difference in thier
right to persue it meaning they can use government resources
to spend time etc...vs. there right to a hearing if someone
else turns up evidence. I think it is the legal systems
obligation then, not neccesarily the prisoners right, to
review the information and act on it if appropriate.

| <<< Note 44.95 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Exit     Stage left......" >>>


| Basically take them all away and only give them some basic rights like food, 
| shelter, medical care, something to prevent abuse or torture......etc.. Don't 
| see a need for much more.

	I guess if we look at what rights they have, we can figure out what is
or isn't needed. What other rights do they have Teekema.


Glen

    DOOM!

    and SNARF!

    watching the news tonight the liberal NBC highlighted the crime rampage
    happening in tampa. seems about 100 youths are competing with one
    another to see who can be the baddest. and they are indeed bad. guns,
    drugs, whatever. they terrorize citizens randomly. two things really
    opened my eyes.
    
    1. these kids never served time. the story was about how they now
       might.
    
    2. these kids are ANIMALS!! they showed them spitting, kicking,
       swearing, you name it as they were arrested and led away.
       they don't care about life. literally. i'm almost convinced
       that we won't stop this kind of "wilding" without executing
       those kids (floridians don't consider such 14 year olds kids
       anymore).
    
    we've only a short time to straighten out this country. the clocks
    running.

    
    I dunno about executing them gene...
    
    I would opt to ship them to, say, the Middle East for a little
    "re-habilitation" or maybe to Viet Nam to some of those "re-education"
    camps...
    
     They want to be animals? Let them try it over there....
    

    I would think people with no conscience and nothing to lose would do
    rather well in either place...
    
    I'm with Gene. HUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMM. Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Crackle Crackle...
    
    -b

    Interesting how this correlates with Dahmer... hmmm

    
    I thought Florida had liberal LTC laws allowing someone in 
    genuine fear of grevious harm to drop the perps.
    
    One would think that natural selection would eventually reign
    in the critters.

    re: Haag
    
    What the hell are you watching *** news for, friggin propaganda
    spewing trash outlet.
    
    Re: the kids/animals.
    
    Send 'em to Dawsonville a few at a time.  We'll send 'em back via
    refrigerated truck service.  That chit ain't tolerated around here. 

          <<< Note 44.105 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>

>    I thought Florida had liberal LTC laws allowing someone in 
>    genuine fear of grevious harm to drop the perps.
 
	They do, but a little less than 2% of the State's citizens
	are excersizing the right.

Jim

| <<< Note 44.105 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


| I thought Florida had liberal LTC laws allowing someone in
| genuine fear of grevious harm to drop the perps.

	That's drop their pants. I heard Glenn is thinking of moving there...

    Well, actually I have.

    Re: .102
    
    >I would opt to ship them to, say, the Middle East for a little 
    >"re-habilitation" or maybe to Viet Nam to some of those "re-education"
    >camps...
    
    Oh, there's a great foreign policy -- "Here, have some of our
    criminals."  Are they supposed to thank us?

    
    Naaaaah....
    
    If we paid those countries a 1/4 of what we'd spend on "rehabilitating" 
    the little darlings and /or coddling them and/or making them "victims",
    we'd be way ahead of the game....
    
     Simple economics.... and yes, they'd probably thank us for the
    business
    

    Why not take some of that vast amount of Fed-owned land
    (what did someone say, one-third of the country?), and put
    all of the welfare recipients to work building and supporting
    "Punk City" (a "prison city" thinly disguised as a real fun place),
    and send the criminals there?  Kills three birds with one stone.
    
    Chris

    I already suggested that.  The particular federal land I was thinking
    of was Washington DC.  Throw them in there and don't let them out.

    .110:
    
    Reportedly it worked for Castro.
    
    Dick

    
    I have jury duty tomorrow!
    
    Some and/or many and/or most of you may find this weird, but I really want 
    to be picked.  Is there anything I can do to improve my chances,
    supposing that I get as far as being questioned?
    

    Do not {simper}.
    
    YVW

    
    
    Look/dress as "normal" as possible....
    
    Nothing flashy... For heaven's sake, don't look as good as you did
    Saturday night!!!

    .115
    
    be honest.  but if you have been involved personally with a case
    similar to the one you're being called for, don't volunteer that
    information without its being specifically asked for.  but if they do
    ask, don't lie.  (i was called for a murder case in which a guy had
    allegedly hired two hit men to do his wife in.  as soon as the judge
    found out that i had known a woman who was murdered, bang, i was outta
    there - despite the fact that i KNEW i could be a fair juror.)

    
    What, dick, they don't want anyone on the jury who's had similar
    experiences?  Cripes, that doesn't say much about their opinion of a
    person's possible impartiality.
    
    This is the Cambridge Superior Court.  Should I assume it's criminal
    rather than civil cases?    
    
    
    
    (Andy, you suave devil, you 8^))

    
    .115,
    
    For every question they ask you, stare blankly and say: "Huh?"
    
    If they ask you to be more specific, shrug and say: "I guess."
    

    .119
    
    > don't want anyone on the jury who's had similar
    > experiences?
    
    that would seem to have been the case for me.  and it wasn't even the
    defense lieyer that said bye-bye, it was the judge.  the info i gave
    was that i had been friends with a woman who was murdered and had been
    called as a witness in the trial of her killer.
    
    > Cambridge Superior Court.
    
    prolly a criminal proceeding.

    
    mz_deb.... "similar experiences" may equal biases for or against the
    defendant... Lawyers don't want to risk the chance...
    
     'sauve'... huh? :) :)
    

    
    And debonair.  And wearing bells 8^).

	Better than a robe.... that's left to the judges.....

    
    RE: .123

    
    I will make note of an observation I made this morning at the Cambridge
    Superior Court.
    
    One group was called into a courtroom.  I scrutinized the people as
    they went out the door.  (Heck, I had nothing else to do but read
    Dostoyevsky's _Crime and Punishment_.  I thought it was an appropriate
    choice of reading material.)
    
    The ones who came back to our room - the ones who were not chosen to be
    on the jury - were the most well-dressed and "intelligent" looking ones
    of the bunch - suits, ties, nice dresses, etc.  The ones who didn't come 
    back were, in general, the scruffier looking ones - jeans, no ties,
    funny coloured hair, etc.
    
    I know this seems like a generalization, but honestly, that's how it
    looked to me.

    Weird people have weird peers I guess.

    
    heheh.

    
     I would venture a guess that the lawyers felt the "scruffier" looking
    ones (their perception) would be easier to snow/control/bamboozle
    because of lower intelligence (their perception)?
    

     Well, the idea is to empanel a jury most easily convinced by the
    lawyers arguments, not most likely to get to the bottom of things.
    That's why engineers are tossed as frequently as possible.

    HTH.

    
    You fiend you.

    In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
    consequences.

    .........and toss all the criminals in it.  Let's get extreme, even the
    OJay walkers (sp?)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    

    
    JACKSON (Reuter) - Mississippi's House of Representatives has given 
    initial approval to a bill that would allow judges to sentence
    convicted criminals to beatings or hard labour.  Ignoring warnings
    that such a law would would only damage Mississippi's already
    notorious civil-rights record - the state has yet to ratify the 1865
    13th Amendment to the Constitution - the House voted 76-43 to allow
    allow for hard labour or beatings to be meted out for any felony not
    already punishable by death or life imprisonment.  The bill faces
    another vote in the House and one in the Senate.
    

  This is nuts. What's funny is that everyone imagines this being used against
"young punks" but in reality no one under the age of 30 will ever be beaten. 

  Think about it, even if this law were passed and were not tossed out as a
violation of the 8th amendment, the endless appeals that you see in capital
cases would occur in corporal cases as well. The result would be a lag time of
10 to 15 years between the time a crime was committed and the accused was
beaten. 

  Since just about anyone under 12 or 13 would probably be tried as a juvenile
the only people that this would apply to would be people who were 15 or over
and more often 20 or over when the crime was committed. Allowing for the usual
10-15 years of appeals, this means most people beaten would be 30+. 

  Also, it would have to apply equally to both men and women and if they
discriminated against young people that would be a civil rights violation. So
if you are picturing some "young punk" getting the cane for vandalizing a car,
replace that with the image of a 65 year old woman going under the can for
shop lifting at the local mall. 

  George 

    
    
    ....and that's why I say we should limit all cases to two appeals. If
    you can't prove your case for the third time in a row, then you're not
    going to....
    
    
    jim

RE        <<< Note 44.137 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    ....and that's why I say we should limit all cases to two appeals. If
>    you can't prove your case for the third time in a row, then you're not
>    going to....
    
  Fine but remember "two appeals" means filing an appeal and going to court 10
times. 

  For each issue that you appeal you can go to the state court of appeals, the
state Supreme Court, then file a writ of habeas corpus and go to Federal
District Court, then the Circuit Court of appeals then the Supreme Court. 

  You can't really cut that down any since each level has the job of reviewing
the lower level and skipping straight to a higher level would swamp the high
courts who's case load is already rather large. 

  Also, the more you cut down on appeals, the greater the chance that the
wrongly convicted gets punished. 

  George 

    
    <-------
    
    and people wonder why the US justice/court system sucks...
    

RE    <<< Note 44.139 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    and people wonder why the US justice/court system sucks...
    
  Yeah, it's really terrible the way we have all those extra checks to make
sure the innocent don't get punished for crimes they didn't commit. 

  So tell me, if you were tried and convicted for a crime you didn't commit and
your two shots at the state level failed, would you decline the opportunity to
apply for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on general principle feeling that since you
had your two appeals you should now do the time? 

  George 

    
      "You have been found guilty of a crime so heinous that we sentence
     you to the following punishment :  to be incarcerated alone with
     others convicted of similar crimes only, for a random period of
     time exponentially distributed with a mean of 12 years, after which
     you will, with a probability of .352, be executed."
    
      bb

    
    RE: .140
    
    I knew I was gonna hear this...
    
    There will always be anomalies...
    
    NO ONE wants to be in that kind of position!
    
    Is it worth it to have such a screwed up system for those very few who
    fall through the cracks or is there something better?

    
    
    re: .138
    
    	at least they can only go to court ten times if you limit to two
    appeals. Now there are endless appeals...
    
    
    jim

RE    <<< Note 44.142 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Is it worth it to have such a screwed up system for those very few who
>    fall through the cracks or is there something better?

  Yes it is worth it.

  Keep in mind this is only a problem for death penalty cases. If you do away
with the death penalty and sentence those convicted of 1st degree murder to
life without parole then this entire problem goes away.

  George

    
    No....
    
    I do not want my tax money going to support someone for the rest of
    their life...
    
    
     As for being worth it... I don't think so... but that's just my
    opinion...
    

  I believe you should never push for legislation that you can not live with
yourself. 

  I can say without hesitation that if someone close to me were murdered I
would still be against the death penalty and against limiting appeals. I would
still be in favor of life without parole as the maximum penalty allowed. 

  Can you say the same thing? I have yet to hear a "lar'en order" type say that
they would be in favor of the death penalty and limited appeals if they or their
loved one were the person wrongly accused and their 2nd appeal had just failed.

  George 

    
    .146, George:
    
    Actually, Haag used to say that all the time.  Couldn't be swayed.
    

  Here's 44.26 below. I don't see him saying that he would refuse an appeal for
himself or his loved one if they were wrongly convicted. Again it's the
vague and impersonal "there will be mistakes". 

  I'm waiting for someone to say "I would tell my son's lawyer not to try a 3rd
appeal and would rather see my son put to death even if he were wrongly
convicted because it would needlessly clog up the courts system and delay
justice. 

  George



           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 44.26                    Crime and Punishment                     26 of 147
HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet."                  12 lines  28-NOV-1994 14:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 44.25 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK 
    
    >On the other hand haag, the gentlemen who was scheduled to be
    >executed was coerced into "confessing".  See, he was a black fellow,
    >and if he didn't confess he'd be found hanging in the woods upside down
    >bare-arsed.  And I would believe him for thinking this way.  DNA
    >tests later proved, without a doubt, he could not have committed the
    >crime he alledgedly did.  
    
    i admitted there will be mistakes. i accept the risks associated with
    living under a more fair and equitable system. letting 2,000 guilty out
    to rape and kill again, all to save one, is not acceptable.

    
    Well, there are other, better examples if you want to go looking
    for them in the old_soapbox, but he *did* say that, specifically
    stating that he would rather die than spend 25+ years in jail.
    
    Kinda tough to debate with him now, though.  :^)
    

>    Kinda tough to debate with him now, though.  :^)
    
Why, did they execute him?

    
    No, he moved to Colorado and the fresh mountain air changed his mind.
    

    
    Silly argument anyway.  In his testimony before the committee,
    for example, the Kaliph AG said the Golden State has to employ
    51 prosecutors, plus overhead, over $10M/yr to handle hundreds
    of appeals in capital cases alone, and that more than 3/4ths  are
    NOT disputes related to guilt/innocence, but about sentencing, etc.
    Even among those that ARE disputes about guilt, most have to do
    with jury charges, admissibility, etc - NOT new evidence, which is
    vanishingly rare.  To say nothing of the millions paid to DEFEND
    these cases, almost all from the public's taxes.  Infinite appeals
    are about lawyer featherbedding, not "justice for the psychopaths".
    
      bb

    I do not have a problem with the death penelty if it is clear cut. If
    some one kills omeone in a robbery and the cops catch him standing over
    the bodies with a smoking gun then execute h/her. I have a problem with
    the death penelty if there is ANY doubt that that person did it.

RE          <<< Note 44.149 by TROOA::COLLINS "Distributed being..." >>>

>    Well, there are other, better examples if you want to go looking
>    for them in the old_soapbox, but he *did* say that, specifically
>    stating that he would rather die than spend 25+ years in jail.
    
  Yeah, I can understand that, lot's of people might feel that way, but did he
ever say that he believed so strongly that appeals should be limited that he
would rather see his wife or child denied a 3rd appeal for a crime in which
they were wrongly convicted even if that appeal would set them free?

  George

    
    Personally, I think we should bring back stocks and pillories.  A
    little public humiliation might be just the ticket for a lot of these
    punks.  Oh, but I forget (in my best sarcastic tone) "This might
    damage their precious psychies."  
    
    Chain gangs work for me too.  Why not have the criminals put something
    back into society.  Watching TV, lifting weights, and filing frivolous
    law suites sure doesn't.
    
    Dave

                     <<< Note 44.154 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Yeah, I can understand that, lot's of people might feel that way, but did he
>ever say that he believed so strongly that appeals should be limited that he
>would rather see his wife or child denied a 3rd appeal for a crime in which
>they were wrongly convicted even if that appeal would set them free?

	"Willing to live with the risk" seems pretty straightforward.

Jim

    
    George,
    
    I'm fairly sure he said something to that effect, but you'd have to
    confirm that.  Haag tended to view this issue from the eyes of a
    military man...acceptable losses...end justifies the means...that
    sort of thing.  But I've said too much on his behalf already; there
    seems to be a small red dot of laser light on my shirt, just about
    where my heart should be.  :^)
    

    
    >there seems to be a small red dot of laser light on my shirt, just about
    >where my heart should be.  :^)
    
    Duck down a bit until it hits your chin.  Dr.Dan will help 8^).

    
    WINNIPEG (CP) - Manitoba is going where other provinces have been
    reluctant to tread with a formal plan to tell people when high-risk
    sex offenders are in their communities.
    
    The plan includes a promise the province will pick up the tab if police
    chiefs get sued for releasing the information.  Winnipeg Police Chief
    Dale Henry said yesterday he acknowledged the threat of a lawsuit has 
    affected decisions he has made about public notification.
    

RE      <<< Note 44.157 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>  I can say without hesitation that if someone close to me were murdered I
>would still be FOR the death penalty and FOR limiting appeals. I would
>NOT be in favor of life without parole as the maximum penalty allowed. 
    
  Fine but you are ducking the issue.

  If your close relative, spouse, child, what ever were on death row for a
crime they didn't commit and had used their 2nd appeal, would you be against
them filing further appeals if you thought it would get them out? Would you say
"I'd rather see my kid put to death than live with a justice system that
allows all these appeals". 

  I'm still waiting for someone to say they would feel that way. So far all
we've got is people claiming a former BOXer would have said that if he were
here. 

  Come on, have the courage of your convictions. If you really believe in
limiting appeals let's hear how you would proudly march down to death row for a
crime you didn't commit rather than file a 3rd appeal even if you were sure it
would get you off. 

  Remember, no guts, no glory,
  George 

    It's not prudent to base laws on emotionalistic outlooks and extreme
    examples. 

    
    Note 44.162

    >It's not prudent to base laws on emotionalistic outlooks and extreme
    >examples.
    
    Which is why I'm generally opposed to capital punishment.
     

RE                    <<< Note 44.162 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    It's not prudent to base laws on emotionalistic outlooks and extreme
>    examples. 

  I agree completely. But the argument for the death penalty is entirely based
on emotion. How often are we asked to think of the pain of the victims in a
murder trial (where victim obviously does not mean the real victim but their
friends and relatives)? 

  The death penalty is expensive, impractical, and doesn't deter anyone from
anything. If appeals were cut down as far as the courts would allow them to
go it would drastically increase the danger to the wrongly accused and would
still make hardly any dent at all in fighting crime.

  George 

    
    Ski...
    
    Your situational ethics example is just that... situationally, myself
    or one of my loved ones wouldn't be there if they were innocent...
    so you can't use that as an example...
    
     As for being too expensive etc... yes, you are correct... as it stands
    now (the cock-eyed judicial process)... Streamline it and it really
    gets cheap fast!
    
     Start executing more that 6 per year (more like one a day) and you'll
    see how fast the crime rate would drop!!
    

    
    Note 44.166
    
    >situationally, myself
    >or one of my loved ones wouldn't be there if they were innocent...
    
    How do you know, Andy?  There have been several cases recently in
    your country of innocents convicted of capital crimes.
    
    Here in Canada we had Guy Paul Morin (convicted in the sex slaying of
    a young girl) just recently cleared by DNA evidence.  There was David
    Milgaard (served 25 years for sex slaying of a nurse) finally released
    because the case turned out to be crap, but still never cleared.  There
    was Donald Marshall (a native convicted of murdering a white man) who
    served 10 or 12 years before being cleared.
    
    If Canada had capital punishment, all of these individuals would
    probably have been sentenced to death.
    
    You saw `The Thin Blue Line' I take it?
    
    jc
    

    
    Nope... sorry, I haven't seen it.
    
     Tell me... What is the ratio of crimes and/or criminals convicted to
    possible innocent victims?
    
      If it's miniscule, does it warrant keeping the system screwed up the
    way it is??
    

    
    Yes.  As I've said before...if it's wrong for a robber to blow away
    a clerk during a robbery, then it's just as wrong for the state to
    execute an innocent individual.
    
    Was Paul Hill right to kill a doctor to save unborn children?
      

RE    <<< Note 44.166 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Your situational ethics example is just that... situationally, myself
>    or one of my loved ones wouldn't be there if they were innocent...
>    so you can't use that as an example...

  How do you know? People are wrongly accused of crimes every day.

  Say you walk into your house and find your wife and/or kids dead on the
floor. Who do you think is the 1st person the cops are going to suspect? 
The husband. And if you don't have an alibi all it takes is a little bad
luck and you find yourself on death row.
    
>     Start executing more that 6 per year (more like one a day) and you'll
>    see how fast the crime rate would drop!!
    
  Think for a minute who is most likely to end up on death row. The guys most
often executed seem to be serial killers or people from high crime areas who's
life expectancy is probably not all that great to begin with. 

  Neither group is likely to be swayed by a death penalty. The former are
compulsive killers who would rather kill than live. In the latter case being on
death row probably extends the life expectancy of the accused. 

  Life without parole, now that's scary. Just imagine the thought of spending
50-60 years locked up with the worst scum on earth with no chance of ever
walking the streets again. 

  Add to that it's cheaper and if you find you made a mistake you can always
let the guy go.

  George

    
    
      Actually, they ought to hook up the defendant to an electric
     chair with a "voting" circuit during these appeals, and if it's
     frivilous, the judge could fry him right there.
    
      For particularly dumb appeals, you could fry his attorney for luck.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 44.168 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     Tell me... What is the ratio of crimes and/or criminals convicted to
>    possible innocent victims?
>    
>      If it's miniscule, does it warrant keeping the system screwed up the
>    way it is??
    
  Ok you tell me. If you, your spouse, or your child were the only person in
the country wrongly accused and on death row, would it be worth "keeping the
system screwed up the way it is??"?

  Give me the name of an innocent person who it would be ok to execute to
save the system.

  George

>  Give me the name of an innocent person who it would be ok to execute to
>save the system.

Geraldo Rivera.

 I could easily do without Joan Lunden.

    
    Hear, hear!
    

  I said innocent.

  George

  I'll never forget the last complete report I watched with Geraldo Rivera. It
was back when he was still with 20/20 and he was doing a story on the death of
Elvis.

  No joke, he was standing in front of a giant pile of pills, must have been 4
or 5 feet tall. He started rambling on "do you see this pile of pills, this is
how many pills Elvis took in his life time". 

  Talk about tabloid journalism,
  George

    
    By the way, Andy, I know you're probably sick of my Canadian examples.
    Apart from renting `The Thin Blue Line', you could also check out the
    magazine mentioned by Chelsea in 44.83 for some examples closer to home.
    They may not change your mind, but you may find them interesting. 
    
    jc
    

                     <<< Note 44.179 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Talk about tabloid journalism,
 
	Should that be ALLEGEDLY tabloid?

	Or ALLEGED journalism?

	;-)

Jim

    re: .167
    
    >Here in Canada we had Guy Paul Morin (convicted in the sex slaying of
    >a young girl) just recently cleared by DNA evidence.  There was David
    
    Was that the trial that was causing the uproar over the censoring of
    the case?
    
    Bob
    

    Yes, alleged journalism would be appropriate.  Where's the Connie Chung
    note.....
    

    
    
    re: sending an innocent to the chair by mistake
    
    
    	George, plain and simple, the world/justice system is imperfect.
    Innocent people pay the price now and then, but the amount of times an
    innocent person is mistakenly jailed is extremely small. You have to
    accept some room for error. Would you say it's ok to ban alcohol to
    save one persons life? Would you institute martial law to protect the
    innocents?
    
    	As as far as my wife or my children being sent to death row
    mistakenly, it's almost so ridiculous as to not even bear thinking
    about. BUT, if such a situation were to come up and I had labored for
    and managed to help pass legislation to limit the appeals process, I
    would not feel guilty. If after appealing the case 10 times (as you
    said, limiting to two appeals actually = 10 appeals) we could not prove
    their innocense, then I believe 20 or 30 appeals would not change
    anything. Would I grieve? Yes. Would I berate myself for doing what I
    thought was right? No.
    
    	all IMHO of course...
    
    jim 

    
    .182, Bob:
    
    No, the case you're referring to is actually two cases: the Paul 
    Bernardo/Teale case and the Karla Homolka case.  In the Bernardo case,
    the actual trial hasn't started yet, only the preliminary hearings
    have been held so far.  The prelim was blacked out, but the trial 
    itself will be public.  However, there are still some details to be 
    worked out regarding the showing of videotaped evidence in open court.

    The Homolka case was blacked out because it was so inextricably linked
    the the Bernardo case that the judge felt it would be impossible to
    find an unbiased jury if the Homolka trial details had been published.
    It's been often referred to as a ban, but is really more accurately
    known as a temporary injunction; once the Brenardo trial starts, the
    details of the Homolka trial will become public.
    
    jc
    

RE        <<< Note 44.184 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>  ... BUT, if such a situation were to come up and I had labored for
>    and managed to help pass legislation to limit the appeals process, I
>    would not feel guilty. If after appealing the case 10 times (as you
>    said, limiting to two appeals actually = 10 appeals) we could not prove
>    their innocense, then I believe 20 or 30 appeals would not change
>    anything. Would I grieve? Yes. Would I berate myself for doing what I
>    thought was right? No.
    
  But those are not the questions. I didn't ask of you'd feel guilty. I didn't
ask about the situation where you didn't feel more appeals would help.

  I asked about the situation where you had done the number of appeals that
you feel should be the maximum then you felt that one more appeal would do
the trick. Would you refuse that appeal on principle?

  Say that after a certain number of appeals, new evidence came to light.
Perhaps they found the DNA evidence that proved you or your loved one was
innocent.

  In that case would you say "sorry, the proof may be there to show that
I (or my loved one) was wrongly accused, but we've taken our 10 (or what
ever) appeals and I don't believe in taking another one. Fire up ol' sparky,
here we come".

  Somehow I doubt it.
  George

    
>  But those are not the questions. I didn't ask of you'd feel guilty. I didn't
>ask about the situation where you didn't feel more appeals would help.
>  I asked about the situation where you had done the number of appeals that
>you feel should be the maximum then you felt that one more appeal would do
>the trick. Would you refuse that appeal on principle?
    
    	c'mon George, of course no one is going to spend the rest of their
    life in jail if they have a LEGAL way to get out. I would appeal again.
    I'm saying that if I had worked to change the LAW (not principal)
    allowing the number of appeals, then I would accept that.
    
    	George, the thing I'm questioning here is not the appeals by the
    truly innocent (who I think would be able to prove their case in 10
    appeals), but the appeals by the scumbag criminal who appeal just to
    see if they can get off on a technicality. 70% of the caseload out
    there is criminals making appeals or suing everyone and everything.
    THAT'S my beef.
    	
    	Bottom line, I want to limit appeals to two. That makes a total of
    10 appeals to prove your innocense.
    
    jim               	
    

RE        <<< Note 44.187 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    	George, the thing I'm questioning here is not the appeals by the
>    truly innocent (who I think would be able to prove their case in 10
>    appeals), but the appeals by the scumbag criminal who appeal just to
>    see if they can get off on a technicality. 70% of the caseload out
>    there is criminals making appeals or suing everyone and everything.
>    THAT'S my beef.

  But how can you tell who is truly innocent and who is a scumbag criminal
except through the judicial system? What happens when someone truly innocent
needs the 3rd appeal to clear their name? We just change their label to scumbag
criminal? 
    	
>    	Bottom line, I want to limit appeals to two. That makes a total of
>    10 appeals to prove your innocense.
    
  I think there is a better way. What you could do is allow appeals after the
two trips through the system but allow judges more flexibility to dismiss
appeals after that point without a hearing. Then have a special panel of
judges at the appeals court level to make a quick review if necessary, again
without a hearing. After perhaps each 7-10 years in prison, one more regular
appeal would be allowed.

  That way you would still cut the court load while allowing for someone who
has found clear evidence of their innocence a chance to have their appeal
heard.

  George

    
    
>  I think there is a better way. What you could do is allow appeals after the
>two trips through the system but allow judges more flexibility to dismiss
>appeals after that point without a hearing. Then have a special panel of
>judges at the appeals court level to make a quick review if necessary, again
>without a hearing. After perhaps each 7-10 years in prison, one more regular
>appeal would be allowed.
    
    	that's one way I could probably agree with. It's a start anyway.
    
    	See George, you and I aren't so different.....<shudder> :)
    
    
    jim

  Good grief we actually found consensus in SOAPBOX.

  Maybe we should quit while we are ahead.

  George

    
    
    	agreed, I'm going home.
    
    

    anyone have statistics on the guilty being found innocent? how many
    animals get off and add more stats to the victim column? repeat
    offenders?
    
    the clear point being made by all is that the system does not work.
    it does not adequately punish or deter nor does it adequately protect
    society.
    
    i do favor the death penalty, but before instituting it there are broad
    changes to make and criteria to establish. the system does need:
    
    o streamlining
    o better judges
    o truth in sentencing
    o "country club" incarceration eliminated
    o etc...
    
    Chip

>    it does not adequately punish or deter nor does it adequately protect
>    society.


I think the reasons for this are obvious. The way capital punishment is
applied these days (sparingly and rarely, if at all) it's quite clear to
any capital felon that his chances of actually getting smoked are quite
slim. Someone recently mentioned in here that for it to be effective,
capital punishment must be applied "early and often". When people begin
to realize that their chances of being put down are much greater, rather
than lesser, than winning the megabucks drawing, the deterrent effect will
be easily sensed.

    
    Re: Country Clubs:
    
    I read an article in the paper this weekend...US Congress just 
    approved $10 billion for the construction of state prison facilities,
    as long as the states involved agree to reduce or eliminate many of
    the amenities that the prisoners are allowed, including personal TVs,
    computers and modems, pool tables, etc.
    

    
    re: -1
    
    barney frank scored some good points last week during the debate on
    this issue, pointing out that the repubs are all for empowering the
    states, except for when they're not.  he's right on this one.  the
    10 billion is targeted at states that "improve" the percentage of 
    sentences served by inmates.  this can be met simply by sentencing
    criminals to shorter terms and keeping them in prison for the same
    length of time as in the past.  also, jurys that sentence criminals
    to 30,000 year terms (as one did recently) would really hurt a state's
    numbers because less than 1% of the term would be served.
    
    bill

    -1 yup... i saw a quickie news spot where newt was saying that the
       local city govt's couldn't be trusted with the federal money
       (for additional policeman) then six months later saying the
       exact opposite.
    
       the politicians do more somersaults than a touring Chinese acrobat
       troupe...
    
       Chip

  >>      -1 yup... i saw a quickie news spot where newt was saying that the
  >>         local city govt's couldn't be trusted with the federal money
    
    Let me get this straight.  First the federal government taxes the pee
    out of us in New Hampshire, then has the odacity to say we can't be
    trusted with federal money?  Let's get something straight.  It is NOT
    federal money.  It is MY money which was duly absconded from me at an
    earlier time and now they want me to consider it a privelege to get a
    smidgen of it back?!   That guy from New York is an Ass! (Bumb)
    
    -Jack

	Newt's from NY Jack???

AUdacity

    SNARFacity

    Uhhhhhhh...uummmmm....sorry.

    yup Jack... that's what he said. some other babble about the locals
    squandering it on beauracratic machinary, blah, blah, blah...
    
    i guess the feds go with the "possession in nine-tenths" rule.
    
    
    Chip

                                    -< privIlege >-
   Errrrrrrr......UMmmmmmmmm....sorry.

    
    Jerry Dewayne Williams, 25, of Los Angeles, was handed a sentence of 
    25 years to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza from a group 
    of children, under California's new `3-strikes' law.
    

    What were the other two crimes that qualified him for the increased
    sentence?

    
    Article didn't say.  I believe that all three offences have to be
    felonies. 
    

    
    What were the toppings ?  bb
    

    
    "You have been charged with possession of a class II subtance
    (anchovies) with intent to distrubute".
    

He had four previous felony convictions: robbery, attempted robbery,
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of a controlled substance.
Under the law, the first two are considered "serious" felonies that made
him eligible for 25-to-life for his next "serious" conviction.  He was
convicted of petty theft, which is included in that category.

     Frankly, I don't see stealing food (an amount useful for eating as
    opposed to selling) as a felony, particularly when the value of the
    food in question is less than $10.

According to the article I paraphrased, petty theft is normally a misdemeanor,
but it was upgraded to a felony because of his previous convictions.

    
    He should be ovaltined.
    
    
      bb

    
    	>He should have been quarantined.
    
    Sounds like he will be...for a very long time...and at great expense
    to the California taxpayer.
    

    People here are VERY upset about the Scholar case. He was given 30
    years to life for kidnaping, rape, carjacking and murder. A lot of
    folks were hoping for exacution (sp).  

    We just had an interesting verdict in a trial that has received
    mucho attention in the Atlanta area.  Curtis Rower (whose murder
    confession was videotaped and shown to a jury) received a gift 
    today.  Rower freely admitted shooting the woman but said he
    didn't mean to do it, accident you know.
    
    Rower was being tried for murdering Sarah Tokars.  He committed
    the murder if front of her 6 year old son Rickie; her 4 year old
    was asleep on the back seat of her jeep. He was waiting for them
    as they returned from a Thanksgiving visit to Florida.  He was
    in the home; forced them back into the jeep and made Mrs. Tokars
    drive away.
    
    What is comes down to is the jury got confused over the definition
    of malice murder and felony murder.  This is one time
    the DA probably should have taken the deal offered by the defense,
    but at the urging of the victim's family he refused to make the
    deal and was insisting on the death penalty.  Everyone thought 
    this jury would be out 15 minutes; they were out 3 days.  
    Yesterday when the jury indicated they were having difficulty reaching
    agreement on some of the charges, the judge sternly urged the family
    and the DA to discuss it with the defense....they should have listened
    to him.  Rower apparently was willing to agree to plead guilty to
    charges that would have meant a life sentence with no chance for
    parole.
    
    The jury convicted him on 3 charges of kidnapping, armed robbery,
    but they did not deliver *any* verdict on the murder charges.  The
    judge sentenced him to 2 life sentences plus 40 years.
    
    The DA says he'll try for *another* change of venue and retry him on
    the murder charges.  This should prove interesting; the defense
    will claim double jeopardy, the DA says it's "do"able because the
    jury rendered *no* verdict on the murder charge (I didn't know this
    was allowed).  It was ruled a mistrial on the murder charges.
    
    For those wondering if Sydney Simpson could be called to trial;
    8 year old Rickie Tokars spent half a day testifying against Rower.
    The child refuted Rower's claim that there was another man in
    the jeep and the gun fired accidentally.
    
    A jury gets confused on definitions of murder; a million dollars
    spent on the trial and no murder conviction (remember the defendent
    confessed to the murder)!!!
    
    

    
    
    	makes me wanna puke. How the jury could not convict someone like
    that is beyond me.....
    
    
    

    Re. the Rower verdict - The foreman was the only person holding out on
    the murder charge.  According to the paper, as soon as he was elected
    foreman, he said that he would never vote for a murder conviction.  The
    foremen also wanted Rower to be found innocent of the armed robbery charge
    because Sara Tokars (victim) was already dead when he (Rower) took her
    purse!
    
    Where do they find these idiots?
    
    Dan

  If what you say is true, then it sounds to me like the DA screwed up.

  It's his responsibility to prove to the jury that a law was broken and that
the defendant broke that law. Sounds like he failed at the 1st part of that
job, explaining the law that was broken.

  But I don't really see all that much harm done. With 2 life sentences plus 40
years he's not going anywhere and they've got another chance with a 2nd trial.

  It's not double jeopardy because a hung jury means a mistrial which officially
means he didn't really get any trial at all on that charge.

  George

    George,
    
    I tend to agree with you that the DA screwed up (gee, what a novel
    concept I agree with George) :-)  The DA is ambitious and he's lost
    3 important cases in a row, but to give him a break I didn't mention
    how much pressure what being brought out by the victim's family
    (she has  3 sisters who are almost mirror images of her).  The sisters
    have spent a lot of time in front of TV cameras pleading for jus-
    tice in this case, but it didn't take much to read between the lines,
    i.e. death sentence.
    
    I do think Rower should have gotten a death sentence, but IMO he
    really is just a fall-guy in a horrific plan cooked up by Fred Tokars.
    
    Tokars is/was an attorney; we used to see him all the time on TV 
    doing those tacky ads that have sprung up by so-called professionals.
    Tokars was a low-level municipal judge at one point.  Apparently, he
    got involved in a money laundering scheme (drug money); Sara Tokars
    stumbled across incriminating evidence in a home safe, their marr-
    iage was in trouble and he was afraid she'd spill the beans during
    a divorce.  Alas, the hapless Tokars didn't know that Sarah had
    already smuggled copies of some of the papers out of the house and
    into her sister's hands.  She'd hired a PI to watch him and she'd
    told a number of people that she was afraid of Fred, she also stated
    that she was afraid he would kill her.  She told her sister that if
    anything ever happened to her, to take the papers she had smuggled
    out to the police (does any of this sound familiar)?  Eerie.....
    
    Anyhoo, the feds stepped in first and nailed Tokars are federal
    racketeering charges, chalk up one life sentence.  Tokars goes on
    trial next in Cobb County for conspiring to murder his wife (this
    will happen before Rowers gets re-tried (if he ever does).
    
    The chain goes like this:
    
    !. Tokers solicits a business associate (Eddie Lawrence) to find
       someone to off his wife.
    
    2. Lawrence gets Rower (crack addict) to do the deed for a $5,000
       fee.
    
    3. When the house of cards fell, Lawrence rolled over on Tokars
       and Rower (in return he is now in witness protection program).
    
    
    Ain't justice grand?
    

  Sounds like a movie to me.

  I figure Farrah Faucet for Sara Tokars, Peter What's his name (from rich
man poor man) for Fred Tokars and let's see ... Jeff Bridges for Rower.

  Who could we get for the D.A.?

  George

    
    Rower's black as the ace of spades.  
    
    jeff

    re:  -1

    
    Why, then, OJ of course!

  Fishbone. Is that the right name?

  The guy who played Ike Turner in the movie about Ike and Tina turner.

  How about him?

  George

    Fishburne, Larry.  Like his stuff.  Plays a good guy and a bad guy
    equally well IMO.  
    
    Brian

    George,
    
    Farah isn't a bad choice. Sarah was a very pretty blonde, but she
    didn't wear her hair as "big" as Farah does :-)  To me Sarah rather
    resembled Lisa Hartman Black.
    
    
    

    
>    Farah isn't a bad choice. Sarah was a very pretty blonde, but she
>    didn't wear her hair as "big" as Farah does :-)  To me Sarah rather
>    resembled Lisa Hartman Black.
 
    Then the ideal candidate would be our own Di DesDemaisons!
    
    jeff ;   
    
    

Speaking of Farrah Fawcett, I see she's in a new movie. She's aged rather,
er, oddly. (I mean, she doesn't just look older, it seems as though her
facial features have radically changed.)

    
    This happens.  When I went to my ten year highschool reunion I was
    anxious to see one of my favorite beauty queens from those days (I had
    several, being so tall and all).  She had gone from a real beauty to
    the epitome of appalachian hill woman.  Her facial structure had seemed
    to completely change.
    
    Maybe her lifestyle had something to do with it.  Most everyone was
    anxious to see her again, naturally.  She walked in to the country club
    and upon her entrance her fifth of Jim Beam dropped out of her purse
    and splattered on the floor.  Quite the entrance!
    
    Later, her cocaine dealing, cattle raising boyfriend who looked like a
    character out of Snuffy Smith (he was wearing a plaid work short,
    slacks and the scraggliest beard you've ever seen) felt compelled to
    HUG ME! 'cause he'd heard so much about me.  This is funnier when seen
    from a distance with me in my virgin white Armani suit, tan, California
    haircut and bod being hugged by Lil Abner's cousin.  The look of horror
    on my face must have been hilarious.
    
    jeff

You're probably right. I think I may have just been taken off
guard after recently seeing Marilu Henner, Barbara Eden and
Maryann from G.I. for the first time in over 15 or 20 years
and realizing that they looked a whole lot better (or at least
as good as) than they had last time I'd seen them. Farrah - not so.

    Probably because Farrah's the only one who doesn't have several
    ounces of her facial skin sitting in a jar of formaldehyde somewhere.
    The others have had their skin pulled tighter than a drum head,
    and it shows.
    
    It's completely impossible for someone to look younger than they
    did ten years ago (without surgical intervention, that is).  So
    when someone like Ann Jillian (whom I otherwise admire) shows up
    looking like they're in their early 20's, my natural skepticism
    takes over.
    
    Chris

	(continuing from Susan Smith topic)

	Jack, I don't have a proposal for a guaranteed effective reform.
	That doesn't mean I'm happy about the way things stand though.
	This sort of "You have to have a solution if you don't like mine."
	approach doesn't make your solution any more just.

> From New York: The Aztec city of gold ... it's THE TOP TEN LIST for
  Wednesday, March 8, 1995.  And now, one brave son of a gun ... David
  Letterman!
 
> From the home office in Sioux City, Iowa ...
 
TOP TEN REJECTED METHODS OF EXECUTION IN NEW YORK STATE
 
10. Lethal injection of street vendor hot dog water
 
 9. Karate kick to the throat by Mayor Giuliani
 
 8. Out-of-work Don Mattingly pounds you into hamburger with a Louisville
    Slugger
 
 7. Blind date with some dude named Von Bulow
 
 6. Being forced to watch Letterman do lame "warning labels" piece
 
 5. Giant catapult that flings you to New Jersey
 
 4. The exploding taxi
 
 3. They give you your own prime-time show on CBS
 
 2. Act as own executioner (Colin Ferguson only)
 
 1. Lap dance from Al Sharpton
 
        [Music: "Truckin'" by the Grateful Dead]
 
 
Compiled by Sue Trowbridge
 
          ----------------------------------------
               LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN
               11:35 p.m. ET/PT (10:35 CT/MT)
               on the CBS Television Network
          ----------------------------------------
 
             On Thursday's show, Dave welcomes
 
             ... STUPID PET TRICKS
             ... musical group OASIS
             ... actor JOHN TURTURRO
 
Brought to you by Yoyodyne Entertainment where the future begins ...
tomorrow.  Get on the media hype bandwagon and send mail to OJ@sgp.com
to play the infamous O.J. Pool and win cool prizes.
 
The Top Ten List is Copyright (C) 1995 Worldwide Pants, Incorporated.
Used with permission.
 
You may also use the FINGER command to grab today's list from
<barnhart@well.sf.ca.us>.  If you prefer to use e-mail, send a
message to infobot@infomania.com with TOPTEN in the SUBJECT line.
 
TOPTEN is also reflected to the newsgroups alt.fan.letterman.top-ten
and alt.fan.letterman.
 
To leave the list, mail LISTSERV@LISTSERV.CLARK.NET with the message
   SIGNOFF TOPTEN
To join the list, mail same with the message SUBSCRIBE TOPTEN Your Name

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA02666; Thu, 9 Mar 95 12:10:48 -080
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 2/22/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA02066; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:54:42 -080
% Received: from allison.clark.net by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95) id AA09590; Wed, 8 Mar 95 23:36:45 -080
% Received: from allison (allison.clark.net [168.143.0.3]) by allison.clark.net (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id AAA08606; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 00:37:37 -0500
% Received: from LISTSERV.CLARK.NET by LISTSERV.CLARK.NET (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8a) with spool id 25286 for TOPTEN@LISTSERV.CLARK.NET; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 00:16:31 -05
% Received: from sowebo.charm.net (sowebo.charm.net [199.0.70.21]) by allison.clark.net (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id AAA06659 for <topten@listserv.clark.net>; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 00:16:28 -05
% Received: from listserv.clark.net by sowebo.charm.net; Thu,  9 Mar 95 00:34 EST
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Length: 1974
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
% Approved-By:  Sue Trowbridge <trow@CHARM.NET>
% Message-Id:  <Pine.SV4.3.90.950309003128.22815A-100000@sowebo.charm.net>
% Date:         Thu, 9 Mar 1995 00:34:04 -0500
% Reply-To: topten-request <topten-request@LISTSERV.CLARK.NET>
% Sender: "David Letterman's Top-10" <TOPTEN@LISTSERV.CLARK.NET>
% From: Sue Trowbridge <trow@charm.net>
% Subject:      TOP TEN LIST - Wed 3/8/95
% To: Multiple recipients of list TOPTEN <TOPTEN@LISTSERV.CLARK.NET>

>	This sort of "You have to have a solution if you don't like mine."
>	approach doesn't make your solution any more just.

Of course it doesn't, Di. And, I might add, I'm not necessarily claiming that
my "solution" is "just", either. Likewise, the current state of affairs
(sanctioned violence, "innocent until found guilty and even then if your
lawyer is sharp", posturing juries for reduced sentencing/lesser verdicts,
the fabrication of all manner of "mitigating circumstances" by which to get
criminals off the hook, "helpless victim syndrome", etc.) isn't "just" either.

I'm in search of a system which will not be subject to eternal circumvention
in the interests of the criminally violent. I've proposed an extreme which
solves the problem to my satisfaction.

Getting back to my litany of potential barroom brawl casualties, any random
dozen of peoplecould very well draw the line at twelve different places. I
propose drawing it at the leading edge in order to cover all the bases. The
way things currently stand, the line is virtually absent.

>>Of course it doesn't, Di. And, I might add, I'm not necessarily claiming that
>>my "solution" is "just", either. 

	Yet you're willing to trade one set of unacceptable circumstances
	for another?  

>>The way things currently stand, the line is virtually absent.

	The line is still there - there are just people stepping over it all
	the time.  Stop that from happening.  Throw out these psychobabble
	defenses and endless appeals processes.  Could you not come up
	with a list of reforms that, if you had your way, would be made 
	to the legal system?  They probably have as much chance of happening
	as the death penalty does of being instituted for any crime involving
	battery, but at least it's not an unconscionable approach.

	I agree that things are ridiculous right now.  I just couldn't
	believe you would really sanction the death penalty in all these cases.
	That's the only reason I'm even discussing it with you.  But 
	you've convinced me that you're serious.  ;>

>	Yet you're willing to trade one set of unacceptable circumstances
>	for another?  

I'm willing to trade an unacceptable set of circumstances which doesn't
work well/at all for one which is bound to work significantly better,
yes. The goal is to eliminate the violence. The current circumstances
clearly do not meet that goal. They barely even make an attempt at times.

> Could you not come up	with a list of reforms that, if you had your way,
> would be made to the legal system? 

Perhaps, but I preferred the approach of proposing the unacceptable in
an effort to get some of those who are eternally defending the legal
profession to do so instead. He's not biting, though, no doubt since
he likes it the way it is.

> But you've convinced me that you're serious.

I am serious. Until I see something better which has as good a chance of
producing the same results.

49.421>  I make the person sick who wanted to see people in bar fights get
49.421>  the death penalty. Boy that really fills me with shame.

Primarily, I want to see an end to wanton violence. In the absence of anything
that works to attain that goal, your precious judicial and penal system
being a prime example, I proposed an admittedly drastic measure which,
minimally, can be argued to be effective in attaining that goal. You have
been invited on any number of occasions to come up with a counter-proposal
which can be even partially as effective, with the promise of eventually
attaining the same goal. You have not, as of yet, been so good as to respond
to that challenge. That leaves me with only one conclusion regarding your
views on the matter, George. You're perfectly happy the way things are and
the violence be damned.

If you'd care to express an opinion to the contrary, have at it.

  I can think of nothing more violent than having a state execute everyone who
ever throws a punch. That would be a dramatic increase in violence, not a
decrease. 

  I support Clinton's crime bill as a way to reduce violence. It puts more
cops on the street and also has programs aimed at getting kids off the
streets before they become violent. 

  Not perfect to be sure, but it beats a system in which millions of people
including tens or hundreds of thousand of innocent people would be slaughtered.

  George

>  I can think of nothing more violent than having a state execute everyone who
>ever throws a punch. That would be a dramatic increase in violence, not a
>decrease. 

A State commissioned execution as punishment for a crime which one is convicted
of is in a totally different class of actions than wanton violence committed
by criminals against citizens. If you can't do the time (or, stretch the
rope) then don't do the crime. The punishments we have today are not a
deterrent. So tell me what you feel an effective deterrent punishment is
for a bar room brawler. Also, please tell me how you escalate the punishment
for the more severe results of those brawls.

>  I support Clinton's crime bill as a way to reduce violence. It puts more
>cops on the street and also has programs aimed at getting kids off the
>streets before they become violent. 

It also puts more pressure on law-abiding citizens  who legally possess
fire arms. It also proposes nothing to stem domestic violence, spousal
abuse, child abuse, rape or any of the other crimes of violence which
aren't simply addressed by throwing more police at the problem. And in
the mean time, neither it, nor you, are proposing anything to get at the
root of the problem and reform the judicial and penal system in order to
deter future violence. Instead, these  systems continue to encourage
the continued violence by example - "Look at what you can get away with!
Don't let it hold you back!"

>  Not perfect to be sure, but it beats a system in which millions of people
>including tens or hundreds of thousand of innocent people would be slaughtered.

The violent need to be removed from society so that they are incapable
of continuing the commission of violence on society. Slaughtering them is
a very effective means of doing so. Incarcerating them for life could
have a similar effect, with a much greater financial impact on society.
The sob stories about $1M exceutions notwithstanding, there is no
reason that the capital punishment system couldn't be streamlined to
accomplish the same activities more frequently at a much lower cost.
(I'll be willing to volunteer one day a month to flip the switch. :^)
Reduced or excused sentences work not at all. If you feel we have too
many innocent people suffering for crimes they didn't commit, then address
that matter separately, but don't use it as an excuse to allow the violence
to continue.

  It would be better to live with the violence in our society than to live
under a government that attempted to eliminate that problem by slaughtering
millions of people. 

  George

>  It would be better to live with the violence in our society than to live
>under a government that attempted to eliminate that problem by slaughtering
>millions of people. 

If millions of people are guilty of committing violence against society,
what do you propose should be done with those millions? What happens
today is that they get away with it. Is that what we should be content with?
Why is that better?

RE         <<< Note 44.247 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>If millions of people are guilty of committing violence against society,
>what do you propose should be done with those millions? What happens
>today is that they get away with it. Is that what we should be content with?
>Why is that better?

  Two reasons.

  First, I don't believe non-lethal violence is as bad as lethal violence.

  Second, I believe that no crime committed by an individual is as bad as that
same crime committed by the Government.

  To replace non-lethal violence by individuals with an equal amount of lethal
violence by the state is two steps in the wrong direction.

  George

>  Second, I believe that no crime committed by an individual is as bad as that
>same crime committed by the Government.

If the law determines the punishment for a crime, is it criminal for the
government to carry out that punishment?

    RE: .248
    
    >First, I don't believe non-lethal violence is as bad as lethal violence.
    
     So, if some animal rapes and beats the living chite out of a woman to
    within an inch of her life should get consideration because it was a
    "non-lethal" act of violence??
    
    

>  First, I don't believe non-lethal violence is as bad as lethal violence.

I'll let you field Andy's query on this one before I pursue it any further.

>  To replace non-lethal violence by individuals with an equal amount of lethal
>violence by the state is two steps in the wrong direction.

And you would then propose deterring the violence how?

    
    Note 44.248

    >First, I don't believe non-lethal violence is as bad as lethal violence.

    I'm guessing that there are certain crime victims (those of Charles 
    Ng and Jeffrey Dahmer spring to mind) who found death infinitely
    preferable to the horror that was inflicted upon them.
    
    Just MHO, but I think that there ARE worse things than death.
    
    Many victims of violent rape NEVER learn to deal with it, and end up
    killing themselves.
    

RE   <<< Note 44.249 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>If the law determines the punishment for a crime, is it criminal for the
>government to carry out that punishment?

  If it results in the execution of millions of people who were guilty of
no more than punching someone in the mouth, then to me that is criminal.

  George

RE  <<< Note 44.250 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>     So, if some animal rapes and beats the living chite out of a woman to
>    within an inch of her life should get consideration because it was a
>    "non-lethal" act of violence??
    
  That's bad but it would be worse if after doing all that he killed her.

  But remember we are not talking about rape and beating someone until they are
near death. The debate here is whether anyone who punches someone in the mouth
in a bar fight should get the death penalty.

  George

Your idea of the execution of millions is going to occur if you 
anti-selfdefense folks have your way and disarm all the law-abiding citizens.
the brute-strength crowd will have a field day and you can thank the sarah
brady-bunch and yourself for it.
Amos

    
    RE: .255
    
    >That's bad but it would be worse if after doing all that he killed her.
    
    non sequitur
    
    YOU were talking about "non-lethal" violence...
    
    

RE  <<< Note 44.257 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    >That's bad but it would be worse if after doing all that he killed her.
>    non sequitur
>    YOU were talking about "non-lethal" violence...
    
  Yes, non-lethal violence.

  If someone commits rape and badly injures his victim (non-lethal) that's
bad. 

  If someone commits rape and kills his victim (lethal) that's worse.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 44.259 by BIGQ::MARCHAND >>>

>       Sounds pretty lethal to me whether or not he kills her. He could
>    use "objects" to seriously injure her. But, she could still live.
>    What if he cut off her arms and cut out her tongue, is that okay
>    as long as he doesn't kill her?
>    
>    Rosie

  I'll be happy to answer this as soon as you do one of two things. Either
show me where I ever said that rape was ok, or reword your question to bring
it in line with what I actually said.

  George

> The debate here is whether anyone who punches someone in the mouth
> in a bar fight should get the death penalty.

Er, no, George, that's not quite what the debate is about. We had that
discussion several weeks ago. I thought I made it abundantly clear that
that was a starting point for the issue which even I admitted to be totally
unrealistic. The "debate" has progressed past that point. We are in agreement
that the death penalty for fattening someone's lip is out of line. Where
we haven't fully explored is in the areas of what IS punishable by capital
means (where does the line belong) and what can be done for the lesser
violent crimes in order to effectively deter them, since today the issue
goes largely unaddressed.

If you'd like me to provide you with pointers to any one of the numerous
replies in which I've admitted that the proposal for death in exchange
of a sucker punch is bait, I'll be happy to do so.

>  If someone commits rape and badly injures his victim (non-lethal) that's
>bad. 
>  If someone commits rape and kills his victim (lethal) that's worse.

Is the death penalty applicable in either case in your view? If in one, why
not the other? What is a "reasonable" penalty for each in your view?

    
    
    I agree with George, that the killing is worse.......in a way.  If the 
    person lives, they have a chance of getting their life back together.  
    The animal who would do this should be strung up though.  After a fair 
    trial of course.  Your rights end where someone elses begins.  Yup, 
    I like the old west idea.  found guilty and a few days later string them 
    up.  This stuff has got to stop.    
    
    
    Mike (who keeps a rope behind the seat of his truck ;'))  

RE         <<< Note 44.262 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Is the death penalty applicable in either case in your view? If in one, why
>not the other? What is a "reasonable" penalty for each in your view?

  I'm against the death penalty in all cases.

  While it appears to be constitutional, I'm still against it on personal,
moral, and political grounds. 

  Just my opinion,
  George

So answer the last question then, please. 

("What is a "reasonable" penalty for each in your view?")

RE         <<< Note 44.265 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>So answer the last question then, please. 
>
>("What is a "reasonable" penalty for each in your view?")

  25 to Life for the 1st, life without parole for the 2nd.

  George

    
    RE: .266
    
    So Meowski...
    
    >25 to Life for the 1st, life without parole for the 2nd.
    
    I see you subconsciously built in a possible second occurance for these
    animals...
    
     
      I happen to like the Chinese solution for the 1st...

RE  <<< Note 44.267 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    So Meowski...

  Yes Alternate Polak.
    
>    >25 to Life for the 1st, life without parole for the 2nd.
>    
>    I see you subconsciously built in a possible second occurrence for these
>    animals...
    
  Yes and there is a reason why.

  Say that someone beats and rapes a victim injuring them seriously. If you
have the same penalty for that as if they go ahead and kill the victim, then
they will have no reason to let the victim live. 

  George

    .268
    
    bwahahahahahaha !!!!!
    
>  Say that someone beats and rapes a victim injuring them seriously. If you
>have the same penalty for that as if they go ahead and kill the victim, then
>they will have no reason to let the victim live. 
    
    so you think they treat it like a effing shopping list !
    
    oh my
    
    ric

RE                      <<< Note 44.269 by RDGE44::ALEUC8 >>>

>>  Say that someone beats and rapes a victim injuring them seriously. If you
>>have the same penalty for that as if they go ahead and kill the victim, then
>>they will have no reason to let the victim live. 
>    
>    so you think they treat it like a effing shopping list !
    
  What's an effing?

  There is a tradition in law that goes back to the old testament of "an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

  While this has been interpreted by many new testament followers as allowing
revenge and retribution, I've heard opinions that say it's original meaning
was to limit the punishment given for certain crimes.

  As some have said in this file before, "an eye for an eye" means that if
a criminal takes someone's eye that criminal's punishment is limited to taking
their eye as apposed to taking their entire head. 

  George

    .270
    
    i'm glad you don't know what an "effing" is cos then it isn't a
    *recognisable* obscenity
    
    ric

    
    So Meowski....
    
    If some pervert rapes a young boy and cuts off his penis and/or testes,
    we should be more than free to do the same to him as punishment...
    right??
    
      P.S.  I still like the Chinese method...
    

Boy, there's a lot of hysteria here -- and everywhere, it seems.

In the past 40 years violent crimes per capita have not gone up much. And 
if you take a dozen or so fairly small urban zones out of the equation, it 
may well have gone down.

What has increased significantly is our exposure to what violence there is 
through the news -- especially from TV. And all you guys who rant and rave 
about the the distortions major news networks are guilty of nevertheless 
get sucked into their vortex in which violence is the gravity of choice 
because it makes such great copy. And so you stock up your arsenals and 
prepare for armageddon (sp?), and/or try to ward "this terrible violence" off 
by pushing for a new approach to the judicial process that encourages a 
rush to judgment and revenge-as-law.

You're overinformed. And it's only going to get worse, I'm afraid.

Tom

    What sort of punishment do ya'll think should be given to the slime
    who assaulted an 8 year old girl in the restroom at school; and then
    HUNG the child from a clothing hook???!!!!????  Authorities are not
    sure how long the child hung there; a teacher eventually heard her
    screams and found her.
    
    Animals treat their young better than we do :-(  The really sad
    part is, IF they find out who did it, the perp(s) will probably
    turn out to be older kids.
    

    
    
    
    Not at all Tom, I want to see truth in sentencing passed.  We can
    reduce crime even more if we keep the people committing the crimes
    behind bars since they are the ones who (statistically speaking) keep
    committing the crimes.  I've got a lot of respect for George for saying
    that he would want the same treatment for the murder of his loved one 
    as he is advocating for others in another note.  I am the same way,
    where we differ is the fact that I support the death penalty (athough
    I am still bithered by it).  If someone raped one of my daughters, I
    would want to kill them.  Why should it be any different for someone
    who rapes someone elses daughter?  It shouldn't.  Same thing with cop
    killers.  Why is killing a cop any worse than killing anyone else?  In
    my opinion it isn't, the talking of a human life is the taking of a
    human life regardless of what your profession is.
    
    
    Mike  

RE  <<< Note 44.272 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    So Meowski....

  Yes alternate polaski.
    
>    If some pervert rapes a young boy and cuts off his penis and/or testes,
>    we should be more than free to do the same to him as punishment...
>    right??

  Back around 1000 B.C. when the "eye for an eye" rule was encouraged, that
would have been considered leading edge modern liberal justice. But that all
changed with a radical shift to the left back around 2000 years ago when a
profit came along and said something to the effect "it was said in times of old
an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say do unto others as you
would have them do unto you." 

  Would you have someone do that to you? I wouldn't. Therefor I wouldn't do
it to someone else. And that's a philosophy that is 2000 years old.
    
>      P.S.  I still like the Chinese method... 
    
  Right, when people demand freedom roll in the tanks and gun them down by the
thousand. I'm not surprised that you like their system.

  George

RE    <<< Note 44.274 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Animals treat their young better than we do :-(  The really sad
>    part is, IF they find out who did it, the perp(s) will probably
>    turn out to be older kids.
    
  No they don't. It is quite common among cats, both large and small, for a
male to kill a female's kittens just to force her into heat so he can generate
his own offsprings.

  And that's typical feline behavior. What you are talking about is below the
bottom 1%.

  George

> radical shift to the left back around 2000 years ago when a
> profit came along

I see we're back to the fantasy about the benefits of socialism . . . 

    
    RE: .276
    
    As usual Meowski, you've got it completely wrong about what the
    "profit" had to say... Go study up on it, or consult Herr Binder...
    He'll be more than glad to straighten you out...
    
     and again, as usual, you take things out of context re: the chinese...
    FYI, I was not talking about tanks... but you knew that...
    

    So shoot me, I'm not a cat person!!
    
    

RE  <<< Note 44.279 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    As usual Meowski, you've got it completely wrong about what the
>    "profit" had to say... Go study up on it, or consult Herr Binder...
>    He'll be more than glad to straighten you out...
>    
>     and again, as usual, you take things out of context re: the chinese...
>    FYI, I was not talking about tanks... but you knew that...
    
  Whoooooo, alternate polaski. Rock hard logic backed up by devastating
arguments.

  I have the profit right and I am against the idea of restructuring our
justice system to fit the Chinese system regardless of what part you are
speaking.

  George

    
    You may have the "profit" right, but you're completely out to lunch as
    to what he said and why.. and God forbid you should ever stoop to
    someone explaining to you, in context, what this "profit" actually
    meant.... Nooo.... that would be too demeaning and would spoil
    Meowski's attempt at "debating" to death every little thing...
    
     Okay.. you'r right.... I'll forget about the Chinese system...
    
     I'll go with the Saudi Arabian version.... how's that??
    

RE  <<< Note 44.282 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    You may have the "profit" right, but you're completely out to lunch as
>    to what he said and why.. and God forbid you should ever stoop to
>    someone explaining to you, in context, what this "profit" actually
>    meant.... Nooo.... that would be too demeaning and would spoil
>    Meowski's attempt at "debating" to death every little thing...

  Ok Andy, you have the floor. What do you believe that rule "do unto others
as you would have them do unto you" means? Really I want to know your
opinion.
    
>     I'll go with the Saudi Arabian version.... how's that??
    
  Another gem of civil liberty. Why is it that you only like the judicial
systems of repressive dictatorships? 

  George

    
    No George, you still have the ball in your court.
    
    Just where did you hear what you wrote about the profit? Can you
    quote/cite where please? Once you do that, we'll go from there... okay?
    
     
    RE: saudis...
    
       It's just a variation of:
      
    "An armed society is a polite society"....
    
     and besides, I like to piss you off...
    

RE  <<< Note 44.284 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    No George, you still have the ball in your court.
>    
>    Just where did you hear what you wrote about the profit? Can you
>    quote/cite where please? Once you do that, we'll go from there... okay?
    
  I grew up a Prodestent and went to church every Sunday. The "Golden Rule"
was really big in our church and our Sunday School teachers talked about it
all the time. On a couple occasions I've looked it up and it looks to me as
if it is saying:

  "The old rule was to seek an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth but
the new rule is don't do anything to someone unless you would want them to
do it to you."

  That's what I remember, that's what I honestly believe that rule was all
about. Now if you have a different opinion, let's hear it.
     
  George

    
    No dice George...
    
    I don't want to hear what you learned from teachers and preachers... I
    want to know what the "profit" said...
    
      You brought it up, now put up or shut up...
    
     Go find the source... His exact words, not what you remember... 
    
    Then we'll deal with it... It shouldn't be too hard... lawyers are
    usually good at research...
    

  You don't have an opinion on this do you. You don't know what he said, do
you? You have no idea, no clue. 

  No, I am not going to look it up. I typed it in the way I remember it and
I interpreted it the way I remembered it.

  But I have no fear that you will ever place an argument in there to refute
what I said, it's not your way.

  You will just pound your fists on your keyboard, hurl insults demand I
apologize and perhaps save my note for a later date.

  That's ok, it's Friday. I have to leave hear soon anyway.

  George

    
    You're wrong again (as usual) Meowski... as usual..  as usual...
    
     It is not my "opinion" of what He said but the words He said.
    
    I happen to know exactly what it was he said, and it's so far from what
    you've entered, it isn't even funny...
    
     You "remember" and "interpret" something you heard and were taught in
    some Sunday school... and you, being who you are, took it as gospel and
    flew with it....up to and including to this day!
    
      You were called on the carpet, and you try and fling it back in my
    face by saying I don't have a clue as to what it is you were refering
    to... 
    
      You won't enter it because... you ready Meowski??? 
    
    
     YOU CAN'T!!!!  
    
      You were parroting some little diddy you learned and thought that the
    "profit" said... 
    
      You're so damned vain, you won't even admit when you're wrong... even
    when I gave you the graceful chance to go look it up...
    
      You didn't even have to do that!! You could have talked to someone
    who knew just a little about your precious profit and asked them about
    your rote-learned diddy and they would have chuckled and told you the
    real story and the real words...
    
      But no.... you have to sooth the vanity... How could I ever be
    wrong, he asks himself!! Easier to attack from ignorance he says!!
    
     You're pathetic... 

    
    
    BTW...
    
    
     I have no clue???  Ask Nancy what conference I used to moderate... ask
    her what the profit said.,... ask Jeff Benson, ask John Covert... 
    
     Naaaah... the ego won't let you... will it?

	Andy, do you even note in the conference you used to moderate? 

    Isn't "an eye for an eye...",
    
    		and
    
    "Do unto others..."
    
    pretty much the same philosophy, couched in kinder, gentler, phrase.  I
    knock your eye out, my eye gets knocked out.  Or, I shouldn't knock
    your eye out unless I want *my* eye knocked out.
    
    Sounds like splitting hairs to me, but then George has been known to
    split less than that...

RE  <<< Note 44.288 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    I happen to know exactly what it was he said, and it's so far from what
>    you've entered, it isn't even funny...
    
  I admit I don't know exactly what he said but then I don't believe you know
exactly what he said either. If you do, go ahead and prove it by typing it
in.

  Of course once you do that then I can quote and interpret as well as you can
and you lose the ability to hide behind your empty claim.

  If you do decide to type it in remember, he only spoke Hebrew. A translation
into English would be some translators opinion of what he said, not what
he actually said.

  George

    
    <-----
    
    Typical....
    
    You're the one who shot your mouth off to begin with and now you want
    me to prove what the profit said...
    
    and to further muddy up your trail, you start throwing in caveats...
    
    You would make a good lawyer...
    
    
     I wondered why I always like that joke.... I guess it's cause it's so
    true...
    
     
    
    
       Why don't baraccudas bite lawyers....???
    
    
    
    
    
      "Professional courtesy"

RE  <<< Note 44.293 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

    
>    You're the one who shot your mouth off to begin with and now you want
>    me to prove what the profit said...
>    and to further muddy up your trail, you start throwing in caveats...
>    You would make a good lawyer...
    
  I stated what I thought the rule to be and so far you have provided no
alternative interpretation. All you've done is "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" as
stated above.

  If you don't want to debate, fine, don't debate.

>       Why don't baraccudas bite lawyers....???
>      "Professional courtesy"

  Oh my gosh, now there's a joke that's only a decade old and has been told
about 10,000 times. What a knee slapper.

  George

    
    Go ahead and hide Meowski.... you're good at that (Oooooops!! There I
    go again with a "content-free" reply!!!)
    
     You're not "debating", you're "George-atating" (Hey! I like that!!)
    
    As for the joke.... I could care less if you slapped your knee, thigh
    or head!!! I was opining why *I* liked it so much... the age of it
    non-withstanding...
    
      But you fail to pay attention most of the time and go off on your
    "debating" hunt regardless... (Darn! There I go again!! More
    content-free stuff!!)
    

  Ok, getting back to the debate at hand. 

  From what I recall from Sunday School many years ago, It is my opinion that
the New Testament of the Christian Bible has a verse in which J.C. says
something to the effect "it was said to you in days of old an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth but I say do unto others as you would have them do
unto you". 

  Now the wording may be wrong but I believe the gist of what he was saying is
that you should never do something to someone else that you wouldn't want them
to do to you. 

  If you have a different opinion of what he said or a different interpretation
of what he said feel free to add your reply. 

  If what I say is true, then the idea of limiting retribution to the level of
that which was done to you is about 2700 to 3000 years old and the more modern
idea of forgiving your aggressor and only doing to others what you would want
them to do to you is 2000 years old. 

  Based on these philosophies I believe that the death penalty is always wrong
and that prison sentences should be handed out relative to the crime committed
with shorter sentences for less violent acts and longer sentences for more
violent acts.

  George

    
    Sorry, George.  You're confusing the Bible and the golden rule.  Jesus
    does speak the first part of your quote, "it was said..." but the part,
    "but I say do unto others..." does not follow.  I don't believe the
    golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is
    Scripture, rather a traditional moral proposition.
    
    jeff

    .296
    
    > I say do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
    
    Actually, the quotation is this:
    
        "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth
        for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But
        if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
        also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have
        your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go
        with him two miles. (Matthew 5:38-41, RSV).
    
    There is a delicious irony in this, in that coat and cloak were ALL
    that the average person wore in those days, so handing over the cloak
    would leave the giver naked.  Jesus was here advocating that his
    hearers shame the person who would take from them by going overboard.
    
    There's a difference between doing unto others in a civil fashion and
    treating criminals to what they deserve.  Here's one example of how
    Jesus says to treat criminals - it was the first I could think of:
    
        Peter said, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?"
        And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom
        his master will set over his household, to give them their portion
        of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master
        when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set
        him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself,
        'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the
        menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get
        drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does
        not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish
        him, and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his
        master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will,
        shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did
        what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one
        to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to
        whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Luke 12:41-48,
        RSV).

>with shorter sentences for less violent acts and longer sentences for more
>violent acts.

So, given the two cases, in one of which a person is brutally beaten
and killed, and in the other of which that person is brutally beaten
but not killed only thanks to some miraculous chance of fate (perhaps
left for dead by the attacker), what makes the first more violent than
the second?

    Steal this SNARF

	Jeff, the jist of it though is as he mentioned. An eye for an eye was
something the Followers of God were told to do. When Christ came into the
picture, all rules from before, with exception of the big 10, were not held to
Gentiles. 2 more were added in, Love God with all your heart, and do unto
others. It comes down to the 10 Commandments +2 are what Gentiles are to
follow. So George is right here.



Glen

    .301
    
    Wrong.  There are no 10+2.  The 10 and all the Law are summed up in the
    2.

>          2 more were added in, Love God with all your heart, and do unto
>others.

These are not Christian innovations.

Deuteronomy 6:5 says "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your resources."  Leviticus 19:18 says
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It's my understanding that Christianity does not require Christians to observe
all of the 10 Commandments.  For instance, "Remember the Sabbath..."

RE              <<< Note 44.298 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>
>                -< Don't quote what you can't quote correctly. >-

  It appears I got close enough:

>        "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth
>        for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But
>        if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
>        also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have
>        your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go
>        with him two miles. (Matthew 5:38-41, RSV).

  Right hear it appears to me that he's saying if someone is violent do nothing
to seek revenge just turn the other cheek.
    
>    There is a delicious irony in this, in that coat and cloak were ALL
>    that the average person wore in those days, so handing over the cloak
>    would leave the giver naked.  Jesus was here advocating that his
>    hearers shame the person who would take from them by going overboard.

  No, he's saying return kindness for evil. No matter what someone does to
you, be kind back to them. Practice forgiveness and be more concerned about
what kind of person you are than in seeking revenge and thus lowering yourself
to their standards.

  I believe this also and that is why I am against the death penalty.
    
>        And that servant who knew his
>        master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will,
>        shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did
>        what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one
>        to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to
>        whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Luke 12:41-48,
>        RSV).

  And this backs up my point perfectly. Here he is clearly saying that lesser
punishment is appropriate for someone who did not intend to commit the wrong.

  George

RE         <<< Note 44.299 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>So, given the two cases, in one of which a person is brutally beaten
>and killed, and in the other of which that person is brutally beaten
>but not killed only thanks to some miraculous chance of fate (perhaps
>left for dead by the attacker), what makes the first more violent than
>the second?

  ... that the victim didn't survive. The 1st is murder. The 2nd is assault
and perhaps aggravated mayhem.

  George

    
    Well, Gerald, there is some contention on that.  There is no doubt that
    the Christian Reformers held the Christian Sabbath very highly.  It is only
    modernism and antinomianism really that has eroded the teaching of the
    Sabbath.  For example, my sect believes that the Sabbath is to be
    reserved wholly for the LORD.  So, we should practice hospitality,
    visit the sick, worship, study, etc. on the Sabbath.
    
    There is a large difference though between why a Jew would observe the
    Sabbath and why a Christian would observe the Sabbath.  The Jew expects
    that adhering to the law (all 621 of them) will make him righteous
    before God and therefore observes the law strictly.  The Christian
    believe his righteousness is imputed to him by Christ's death on the
    cross but reveres and delights in God's laws and obeys them with a
    desire to please God and receive His blessings.
    
    jeff

    .305
    
    > It appears I got close enough...
    
    No, it doesn't.  If you are too humor-impaired to see the irony in
    Jesus' go-overboard injunction, then there is little anyone can do to
    make this clear to you.
    
    >> And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready
    >> or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But
    >> he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive
    >> a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much
    >> be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand
    >> the more. (Luke 12:41-48, RSV).
    
    > And this backs up my point perfectly. Here he is clearly saying that
    > lesser punishment is appropriate for someone who did not intend to
    > commit the wrong.
    
    But if lesser punishment is appropriate for someone who did not intend
    to commit the wrong, then the full punishment must be appropriate for
    someone who did intend to commit the crime.  Hence, Murder One should
    be punished by death, and you are hoist by your own petard.  Q.E.D.

613, not 621.

    >  No, he's saying return kindness for evil. No matter what someone does to
    >you, be kind back to them. Practice forgiveness and be more concerned about
    >what kind of person you are than in seeking revenge and thus lowering yourself
    >to their standards.

    >I believe this also and that is why I am against the death penalty.
    
    This is so typical of you George; take some stuff and treat
    it as "Gospel" (pun intended, I guess) and ignore everything
    else that doesn't support your wild conclusions. Weren't you
    also the one going about the "render unto Caesar" stuff?
    Here's an example of something that's rendered: the right of
    the state to prosecute and punish criminals as the state
    sees fit.
    
    -b

RE              <<< Note 44.308 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    But if lesser punishment is appropriate for someone who did not intend
>    to commit the wrong, then the full punishment must be appropriate for
>    someone who did intend to commit the crime.  Hence, Murder One should
>    be punished by death, and you are hoist by your own petard.  Q.E.D.

  Well this is why the Bible is so open to interpretation. When I see the quote
you gave before about turning the other cheek it appears to me that he was
saying return kindness for violence. The death penalty is hardly kindness.

  But then this is my interpretation, you are entitled to yours.

  George

RE    <<< Note 44.310 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    This is so typical of you George; take some stuff and treat
>    it as "Gospel" (pun intended, I guess) and ignore everything
>    else that doesn't support your wild conclusions. Weren't you
>    also the one going about the "render unto Caesar" stuff?

  Yes I did go on about that. And like this time after many complaints about
how I had the quote wrong, when the proper quote was entered my interpretation
held up as well as any other.

  A very creative and I felt twisted interpretation was entered going on at
length about how there was all this deep meaning that to me didn't seem to be
there. I stuck by my simpler interpretation that he was saying "the government
created that money, give it back to them if they want it".

>    Here's an example of something that's rendered: the right of
>    the state to prosecute and punish criminals as the state
>    sees fit.
    
  ... but still there are guidelines, not only in Christian philosophy but
throughout history, suggesting that government show restraint based on the
seriousness of the crime.

  George

    .311
    
    It's like Brian says in .310.  You take a passage out of context,
    apparently with little or no concept of what it really means, and hang
    yourself on it.  You have repeatedly said that the stuff you're quoting
    is what you remember from Sunday School.  That you "remember" it is
    commendable.  That you didn't understand it then and have seemingly
    elected not to further your understanding of it now is not a strong
    argument in favor of your being able to discourse with intelligence on
    it.  I would suggest that perhaps you might want to consider reading
    the Bible as an adult instead of dredging up garbled chunks from your
    childhood.

RE              <<< Note 44.312 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    It's like Brian says in .310.  You take a passage out of context,
>    apparently with little or no concept of what it really means, and hang
>    yourself on it.  You have repeatedly said that the stuff you're quoting
>    is what you remember from Sunday School.  That you "remember" it is
>    commendable.  That you didn't understand it then and have seemingly
>    elected not to further your understanding of it now is not a strong
>    argument in favor of your being able to discourse with intelligence on
>    it.  ...

  Oh blah blah blah. I admit I had the quote wrong but when the correct one
was posted the gist of what it said matched up perfectly with what I had
heard years ago.

  It's all in the interpretation. Fundamental conservatives love to hate so
they find excuses to hate everywhere. Liberals are uncomfortable with hate so
they find excuses to forgive everywhere.

  George

  re: mr. binder
    
>>    There is a delicious irony in this, in that coat and cloak were ALL
>>    that the average person wore in those days, so handing over the cloak
>>    would leave the giver naked.  Jesus was here advocating that his
>>    hearers shame the person who would take from them by going overboard.

	This seems a tad far-fetched to me, at first blush.  Just out of
	curiosity, is this your own interpretation, Richard, or one that
	(other) biblical scholars have made?

     >... but still there are guidelines, not only in Christian philosophy but
     >throughout history, suggesting that government show restraint based on the
     >seriousness of the crime.
    
    Everyone now, join us for a resounding chorus of "May His
    Circular Logic Be Unbroken"...
    
    You use the Bible as your definition of "restraint", then
    when shown to be full of, er um, incorrect, you attempt
    to twist this in such a way as to suggest that the death
    penalty is not "restraint based on the seriousness of
    the crime."
    
    Well fine, _you_ don't support the death penalty. For Gawd's
    sake though, leave the poor Bible out of it... you argue
    Carrol O'Connor's politics with Archie Bunker's
    qualifications... :-) :-)

    .315
    
    I didn't invent it.  I can't remember where I saw it; I will go back
    and see if I can find it again.

    .314
    
    > Fundamental conservatives love to hate so
    > they find excuses to hate everywhere.
    
    I *do* hope you're not including me in that, because if you are, I
    could blow you away by marshalling several hundred people who know me
    personally, who will all stand before you and testify that I am the
    antithesis of a fundamentalist conservative.  Hell, most of the
    fundamentalist conservatives here in the 'box will testify that I'm not
    one of them.
    
    Supporting stiff penalties for crime, up to and including the death
    penalty, does not per se make one a fundamentalist conservative.
    
    But I gotta admit, you throw the buzzwords around pretty well.  Too bad
    you don't understand the buzzwords any better than you understand the
    Bible.

    
    Ah, hold onto your fundament, Binder.  Opinion Pole is just
    kicking randomly like a blind horse, as usual.  The noting
    pattern is his signature - outrageous claim, then yes-it-is
    vs. no-it-isn't, then towel-waving as about.  Dun take it
    poysonal-like.
    
      bb

    
    Is 'fundamentalist conservative' code for 'fundamentalist Christian
    conservative'?
    
    

    
    
    
    George would probably label me a fundie conservative as well.  He's way
    off.  I guess my views lean more towards the conservative way of
    thinking, but I tend to align even more with the libertarian platform.  
    
    
    Mike

RE    <<< Note 44.316 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    You use the Bible as your definition of "restraint", then
>    when shown to be full of, er um, incorrect, you attempt
>    to twist this in such a way as to suggest that the death
>    penalty is not "restraint based on the seriousness of
>    the crime."
    
  Figures that a right wing wacko would talk about how I was "shown" what the
Bible meant. Republicans gawd bless'em. Fortunately for the rest of us they not
only have the insight to understand the "true" meaning of the Bible but are
more than willing to crank open our mouths and shove morality all the way down
to our toes.

>    Well fine, _you_ don't support the death penalty. For Gawd's
>    sake though, leave the poor Bible out of it... you argue
>    Carrol O'Connor's politics with Archie Bunker's
>    qualifications... :-) :-)

  Well that's better than arguing Archie Bunker's politics with Meatheads
qualifications.

  George

	Mike, how could anyone label you or Dick as a fundamentalist
conservative is beyond me. Let's hope it doesn't happen to you like
it did to Dick. People should look for individualism and not lump
everyone into one group.


Glen

    >Figures that a right wing wacko would talk about how I was "shown" what the
    >Bible meant. Republicans gawd bless'em. Fortunately for the rest of us they not
    >only have the insight to understand the "true" meaning of the Bible but are
    >more than willing to crank open our mouths and shove morality all the way down
    >to our toes.

    Right wing wacko, OK, fair enough, but:

    Free clue George (if we started charging you would be bankrupt
    by now): I'm not religious. I make no claim to know everything
    about the Bible, but I do ask questions, I do probe, and most
    importantly, I try to listen when someone presents an answer.
    I have an interest in the truth of the matter, not in finding
    anything and everything I can to support whatever wild conclusion
    I feel like drawing. I know these are difficult concepts for
    you to understand, being entirely alien to your modus operandi.

    As for morality, I have no interest in forcing any on you,
    you're barking up the wrong tree again. There's really nothing
    I can do to prevent this misunderstanding on your part; it would
    require a greater correlation between your conclusions and
    reality than shall ever exist.

    -b

RE              <<< Note 44.318 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    Supporting stiff penalties for crime, up to and including the death
>    penalty, does not per se make one a fundamentalist conservative.
    
  Well excuuuuuuuuuse me. Of course wanting to fry someone into the great
beyond puts you in tune with the ringing bell of liberalism.

  George

RE    <<< Note 44.324 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    As for morality, I have no interest in forcing any on you,
>    you're barking up the wrong tree again. There's really nothing
>    I can do to prevent this misunderstanding on your part; it would
>    require a greater correlation between your conclusions and
>    reality than shall ever exist.

  Here you go contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. Either the Bible is
or is not subject to interpretation. 

  If it is, then there is no misunderstanding on either my part or yours since
I am interpreting it my way and you are interpreting it your way.

  If it is not, then you are forcing one way of interpreting the Bible onto
me.

  Make up your mind.

  George

    .325
    
    >> Supporting stiff penalties for crime, up to and including the death
    >> penalty, does not per se make one a fundamentalist conservative.
    
    > Well excuuuuuuuuuse me. Of course wanting to fry someone into the great
    > beyond puts you in tune with the ringing bell of liberalism.
    
    There you have it, folks.  It took a long time to get here, but Meowski
    has just stated that everything is black and white to him.  If you're
    not a bleeding-heart liberal, you're a fundamentalist conservative. 
    Now I'm sorry I wasted my "is the sky blue on your simplistic planet"
    last week, this would be the ideal place to roll it out.

    >Here you go contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. Either the
    >Bible is or is not subject to interpretation. 

    >If it is, then there is no misunderstanding on either my part or yours
    >since I am interpreting it my way and you are interpreting it your way.

    >If it is not, then you are forcing one way of interpreting the Bible
    >onto me.

    >Make up your mind.
    
    I feel like Glen Richardson sometimes... I think there's some
    alter-ego which secretly engages in off-line debates with
    George... that's the only explanation I can think of to
    explain the differences between what I said and what George
    is arguing about.
    
    Anyway... I'm not "forcing" you to interpret the Bible any
    particular way. I'm asking you to leave the Bible out of it,
    as your Bible-based arguments give me a headache. I wonder
    sometimes if the person who printed your bible was the same
    person who printed Monty Python's Hungarian/English phrase
    book...
    
    I was spoon-fed my share of strange Bible interpretations at
    the hands of various Nuns of the Above, and had the good sense
    to forget most of it. Now, when I want to know something
    about the Bible, I generally ask someone who knows about
    it. I find some parts of the Bible extremely interesting,
    once someone who knows the subject sets me in the right
    direction. Freelance Bible interpretation can be a dangerous
    thing, as you frequently demonstrate.
    
    -b

    >>... that's the only explanation I can think of to
    >>explain the differences between what I said and what George
    >>is arguing about.

	Oh good, so I'm not the only one who thought it was
	totally unfathomable.  ;>

    Well, judging from his voluminous contributions as of late, George has
    plenty of time on his hands to concoct alternative realities to go
    along with his "interpretations" of arguments profferred in this forum.

    
    
    Thanks Glen, and I agree about judging folks on their own merits.  I
    look at it this way, I have no right to judge anyone.  People are
    entitled to their own opinions whether they align with mine or not (I
    know, pretty big of me ;')).  Nor do I waste my time or energy on
    staying mad or disliking someone.  Life is too friggin short for these
    games.  I concentrate my time on the positives (I should say that
    liberalism gets a lot of my dislike focus, not the people, but the
    principles).
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 44.331 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>


| I look at it this way, I have no right to judge anyone. People are entitled to
| their own opinions whether they align with mine or not 

	Talk about hitting the nail on the head! 

| Nor do I waste my time or energy on staying mad or disliking someone.  

	I'll back ya on the dislike part! heh heh....

| Life is too friggin short for these games.  

	I heard they made the game a little longer this year. You might want to
check it out.



Glen

    re: .322
    
    
    Talk about a content free response!!!
    
    But I guess it's okay when Meowski enters them cause he's never wrong
    and it's not an opinion, but part of the ongoing "debate" donchaknow...
    
    
    "Look Moe!!! There's wires in these pipes!!"
    

  I've seem to have done it once again. Just a few short months and all of the
right wing wackos have ceased discussing issues and have become totally
obsessed with writing about me and my notes. 

  They are as predictable as a train going down a track. 

  You can do this too. It's simple. Just argue against their sacred cows, don't
let up, and pretty soon you will be all they can think about. 

  George 

    
    George, I don't know who the right wing wackos are you're
    talking about but not everyone is obsessed with writing about
    you and your notes.
    
    Some of us just won't waste the time.

    
    and some of us just want to show what a hypocrite you are...
    
    
    Your mileage may vary....
    

	>>ceased discussing issues and have become totally
        >>obsessed with writing about me and my notes. 

	delusions of grandeur or what?  

        >>They are as predictable as a train going down a track. 

	well, at least that's a _fairly_ reasonable analogy. ;>

  He, he, he, look at'em go.

  They can't stop themselves.

  "Not me George, I'm not talking about you, i never talk about you. This note
I'm writing is not about you George, I DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME, in fact I
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORD YOU MEANS!!!"

  Hot ding, look at'em go.

  George

| <<< Note 44.334 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

| and have become totally obsessed with writing about me and my notes.

	I swear I am not doing this!!!!

| They are as predictable as a train going down a track.

	Which track is the train going down? If the train goes the wrong way
down a one way track, what will happen?


Glen

RE               <<< Note 44.339 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>| <<< Note 44.334 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
>
>| and have become totally obsessed with writing about me and my notes.
>
>	I swear I am not doing this!!!!

  No you are not, but others are.

  George

	So, George, in a forum where the idea is to discuss issues, if
	someone like yourself is spewing what amounts to nonsense (just
	speaking hypothetically here, of course), or framing replies
	in an inscrutable way, then any notes which point that out
	constitute an "obsession"?  I see.  You would no doubt rather
	be ignored.  ;>  

	And feel free to use this as more evidence of an "obsession".  ;>

    
    RE: .338
    
    Don't go spraining your arm or anything Meowski...
    

    What I find amusing is being lumped in with the "right wing wackoes".
    
    DougO

RE    <<< Note 44.341 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	So, George, in a forum where the idea is to discuss issues, if
>	someone like yourself is spewing what amounts to nonsense (just
>	speaking hypothetically here, of course), or framing replies
>	in an inscrutable way, then any notes which point that out
>	constitute an "obsession"?  I see.  You would no doubt rather
>	be ignored.  ;>  

  It's a matter of degree. Take a look, it's gotten to the point where I'll
enter a note and the 6 of the next 7 notes are all screaming at the top of
their fingernails about me and my noting style.

  It was the same last time I did SOAPBOX. I'd enter a note and Eastland,
Boris, Doctah, and others would type insult after insult and the same
emotionally intense pitch. 

RE       <<< Note 44.343 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    What I find amusing is being lumped in with the "right wing wackoes".
    
  I remember back around '92 when you complained about that. Remember how I
always use to say "The right wing and DougO"?

  More good fun,
  George

>  It was the same last time I did SOAPBOX. I'd enter a note and Eastland,
>Boris, Doctah, and others would type insult after insult and the same
>emotionally intense pitch. 

Well, with Eastland and Boris it was probably nothing personal, George -
they did that to everyone except themselves and Higgy.

	Okay, just for fun, let's took a look here.  In .334, George, you
	talked about the "right wing wackos" who are apparently obsessed
	with you and your noting style.  This was followed by one note
	each from Hank, Andy, and myself.  To which you replied, in .338
	"he, he, he look at 'em go."  So, does that mean that Hank, Andy, 
	and I are among the "right wing wackos" that you're talking about,
	"screaming at the tops of [our] fingernails"?  I just need to know
	this, so I'll know how to vote next time. ;>

	(...she said with an emotionally intense pitch.)

    
    But George.  Consider the matter scientifically.  We've had more
    left-wing 'Boxers than you, and certainly a wide range of opinions.
    Yet you are the only one who elicits this particular response
    pattern.
    
    Could it possibly be, not your notes' CONTENT, but your noting STYLE ?
    
    Have you ever even considered the possibility that you are doing
    something others are not ?
    
    Consider this : when was the last time you convinced anybody of your
    viewpoint.  I HAVE been convinced to change my mind on some things,
    but never by you.  In fact, you seem to make "reverse" conversions !
    
      bb

| <<< Note 44.343 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

| What I find amusing is being lumped in with the "right wing wackoes".

	And the falseness in that is..... :-)

	Milady, maybe he thinks you're taking those FAAAAAB-U-LOUS fingernails
of yours and running them down a chalkboard or something. :-)

>>	Milady, maybe he thinks you're taking those FAAAAAB-U-LOUS fingernails
>>of yours and running them down a chalkboard or something. :-)

	you must be thinking of 'tine.  i keep my nails very short and
	don't paint them, so they're hardly fabulous.  ;>

RE                      <<< Note 44.347 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>    But George.  Consider the matter scientifically.  We've had more
>    left-wing 'Boxers than you, and certainly a wide range of opinions.
>    Yet you are the only one who elicits this particular response
>    pattern.
>    
>    Could it possibly be, not your notes' CONTENT, but your noting STYLE ?

  It's an art form. It's taken years to perfect.

>    Consider this : when was the last time you convinced anybody of your
>    viewpoint.  I HAVE been convinced to change my mind on some things,
>    but never by you.  In fact, you seem to make "reverse" conversions !
    
  Some times I make some dents. I believe that I convinced people that everyone
should have a right to an appeal and that doesn't necessarily mean they will
win that appeal.

  I believe that we are no longer hearing about how everyone who throws a punch
during a bar fight should get the death penalty.

  I also believe that most people feel Susan Smith should get a fair trial
instead of just being rolled into the lake which many were calling for when the
story broke. 

  Yuh win some yuh lose some,
  George

So George thinks everyone is obsessed with beating on his notes and that 
its all coming from right-wingers. Who can blame him?

1) he gets viciously attacked, patronized, insulted without the slightest 
sign of restraint or civility

2) Most of this crap comes from his political adversaries -- the far right

Before you start thinking that he's just as vicious in his notes, look 
back. I cannot think of any instance when George has insulted anyone or 
their notes until AFtER he has gotten a whole load dumped on him.

Some time ago, I don't know which string, George asked if he was the only 
one who was "obtuse and intractible". This from the bottom of one of the 
'box's major pile-ons. (Andy's old barracuda joke could be as easily 
applied to 'box regulars as to lawyers). I didn't jump in to support him 
because I didn't want to give comfort to the "enemy" :'). No question, 
George, you're tops in those catagories. But you're hardly alone. And when 
it comes to being arrogant, pompous, self-adoring, and down-right cruel, 
there are a good number of 'boxers that have you beat by a mile. And most 
of them tend to be the ones who go after you with a vengence.

Chin up, Comrade. :') They may have gotten you so disoriented you don't 
know your right from your left, but you've got things in better perspective 
than most of 'em.  

    
    
    No you didn't George.  You convinced noone of nothing.  Everyone
    believes that Fergueson should have the right to file an appeal, but
    not the right that it be granted.  You were the one who turned it into
    what it became.

>  I believe that we are no longer hearing about how everyone who throws a punch
>during a bar fight should get the death penalty.

And I believe you haven't yet proposed anything which can be as effective as
that in eliminating the violence committed against innocent members of
society by the criminally violent. Of course you're not hearing it anymore.
I haven't any need to tediously repeat it if you're not willing to discuss
the matter.

>  I also believe that most people feel Susan Smith should get a fair trial
>instead of just being rolled into the lake which many were calling for when the
>story broke. 

I don't think anyone seriously proposed denying her a fair trial. Please
provide pointers and I'll apologize if I'm mistaken on this.

>    What I find amusing is being lumped in with the "right wing wackoes".
>    
>    DougO
    
    ODoug - by the SOG (Standards of George) you ARE a "right wing wackoe".
    
    Hell, you ride a bike, I ride a bike.  That makes you a gun nut, too.
    
    You'll learn to live with it.  My wife has...
    

Is Dan Quayle a right-wing wackoe?

    .352...
    
>                                                          ... And when 
>it comes to being arrogant, pompous, self-adoring, and down-right cruel, 
>there are a good number of 'boxers that have you beat by a mile...
>
    
    You say that as though it isn't something to be proud of.  
    
    Why?

| <<< Note 44.350 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


| you must be thinking of 'tine.  i keep my nails very short and
| don't paint them, so they're hardly fabulous.  ;>

	Oh... I like those kind better. They make no noise when going down a
chalkboard. :-)


Glen

RE         <<< Note 44.355 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I don't think anyone seriously proposed denying her a fair trial. Please
>provide pointers and I'll apologize if I'm mistaken on this.

  Check out the landslide of notes in the Susan Smith file shortly after
her "confession" was announced. Many were calling for her to be brutally
dispatched, none were suggesting that 1st we hold a trial to see if she
were really guilty.

  George

RE         <<< Note 44.354 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>And I believe you haven't yet proposed anything which can be as effective as
>that in eliminating the violence committed against innocent members of
>society by the criminally violent. Of course you're not hearing it anymore.
>I haven't any need to tediously repeat it if you're not willing to discuss
>the matter.

  No you've got me there. I can't think of anything as effective as mass
genocide when trying to remove some trait from society.

  Nor can I think of anything more despicable as suggesting mass genocide as
a solution to problems faced by mankind.

  George

>  No you've got me there. I can't think of anything as effective as mass
>genocide when trying to remove some trait from society.
>
>  Nor can I think of anything more despicable as suggesting mass genocide as
>a solution to problems faced by mankind.

Are you saying that some ethnic group is responsible for barroom brawls?

	George, could it be that seeing she 


	C	O	N	F	E	S	S	E	D


	to the murders have anything to do with people saying why hold a trial
to see IF she is guilty if she already said she is????

Glen, we've already got a way to avoid a trial in this country.  It's called
"pleading guilty."  You can confess all you want, but unless you plead guilty,
you're going to have a trial.

    
    I know I let off a little steam regarding Susan Smith. I think
    other people did as well. I was motivated to find humor in an
    extremely sad situation. Sometimes, it's a bit of gallows humor.
    I'm sure others had the same motivation.
    
    That George, almost uniquely, was unable to identify it for
    what it was, speaks volumes.
    
    -b

RE   <<< Note 44.362 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Are you saying that some ethnic group is responsible for barroom brawls?

  According to my dictionary, genocide can mean political or cultural group
in addition to racial group.

  You seem to be suggesting that we eliminate violence by killing all those
people who have the trait you wish to see removed from society (i.e. violence).
To me, that fits the spirit of genocide, achieving a political objective
through mass murder.

  George

RE    <<< Note 44.365 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

>    I know I let off a little steam regarding Susan Smith. I think
>    other people did as well. I was motivated to find humor in an
>    extremely sad situation. Sometimes, it's a bit of gallows humor.
>    I'm sure others had the same motivation.
    
  Right, those lynch mobs sure are a scream. Laugh a minute. Never leave you
hanging around waiting for a punch line, if you catch my drift.

  I'm sure that anyone who read through that list of notes would think it was
the most hysterical thing they'd ever read. How could I have missed it?

  George

>  According to my dictionary, genocide can mean political or cultural group
>in addition to racial group.

Barroom brawlers are a political or cultural group?

>  You seem to be suggesting that we eliminate violence by killing all those
>people who have the trait you wish to see removed from society (i.e. violence).

George, are you talking to me?  I've already said I'm opposed to the death
penalty.  Though I'll admit that as of late I'm considering supporting capital
punishment for obtuseness.

RE   <<< Note 44.368 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Barroom brawlers are a political or cultural group?

  They are a political group in the sense that MOLAR::DELBALSO seems to want to
apply the political solution to the problem of violence in our society by
killing everyone who is violent. Of course this is a recursive problem. There
is nothing more violent that killing millions of people but then that's an
issue for another note.

>George, are you talking to me?  I've already said I'm opposed to the death
>penalty.  Though I'll admit that as of late I'm considering supporting capital
>punishment for obtuseness.

  No I was referring to MOLAR::DELBALSO.

  George

For what must be the 20th time, how would you propose preventing the
criminally violent from committing further violence on innocent members
of society, George? Perhaps if you can answer this with something of
substance (i.e. not "I support Clinton's Crime bill"), then we can
make some progress here. Until such time as you voice a proposal, I'm
left with little choice but to conclude that you're perfectly happy
to go along with a continuation of the violence.

Did you by any chance ever see an Elliot Gould movie of the 60's entitled
"Little Murders"?

Re         <<< Note 44.370 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>For what must be the 20th time, how would you propose preventing the
>criminally violent from committing further violence on innocent members
>of society, George? 

  Well as you point out, I did support the Clinton Crime bill. I think that to
reduce violence we need to attack the problem from two sides, deterrence and
prevention. 

  I'm in favor of tough sentences for repeat violent offenders although not the
death penalty. 

  Prisons need to be reformed. I've seen this a million times before but once
again there was a report on 60 minutes about a former inmate who is now a
prison official. He was pointing out how prisons today are run by the inmates
and make people much worse rather than better. Prisons should be run by the
guards, not the prisoners and should make people less likely to be violent not
more likely. 

  We need more cops on the streets. Cops need better pay and benefits so that
we attract the best people to that job. Cops need laws to protect them from
getting shot with "cop killer" bullets ("watch out, here come 100,000 lines
from some www gun note). 

  Kids in the city need a place to go where they can get away from the violence
and participate in constructive activities. 

  We can use better stalking laws and ways to protect women who are in domestic
violent situations before they get killed rather than just moaning about it
after they are killed. More shelters should be available for them and their
kids. 

  Finally, most people learn violence at home. No one should be allowed to smack
their kid. That is not a parents right. If a woman is being beaten in the house
that should be seen as child abuse since the kids learn from watching that sort
of activity. 

  That's a start. Yes many of these things cost money but I see it as an
investment. If it brings down the rate of violence the costs will be recovered.

  George 

    "..deterrence and prevention..." 
    
    I agree George.  We should all be armed so as to deter crimes against
    our persons, and then we should shoot the criminals so as to deter them
    from doing it again.
    
    I didn't think you had it in you.  
    
    ;-)

    er... make that "...PREVENT them from doing it again."

  I knew I was going to get "blasted" by the gun nuts.

  Take that one to the bank.

  George

    That was blasted?  I thought I was making a clever play on words!

    Here in Canada they are saying we have developed a revolving door
    system, a person in jail for rape, gets out on parole and rapes three
    women, is sent back to jail, gets out on parole again and rapes several
    more woman before being sent back to jail. I have heard it suggested
    that one of the conditions of parole should be that the person spend
    some time in the loving company of the families of their victimes, I
    wonder how long they would last. I know it is all well and good to say
    these people have served their time for the crime they have committed,
    but how many times can they ruin many more peoples lives and not have
    some-one finaly snap and take matters into their own hands and, in the
    eyes of the law, that would also be a crime but I think the person who
    does the deed may think it was worth it to keep this man off the
    streets and away from any-one they could ever hurt again. This is where
    most people feel the law is letting them down, the fact that our parole
    boards seem to be too easily swayed by a person who may have spent
    their time in jail behaving them-selves saying they are a changed human
    being, even if this is their second or third time in jail for the same
    offence, do they not ever look at the records of these people or is
    this another point of law, that earlier convictions cannot be used to
    determine if a person can be paroled. I will never understand the law
    and the way it is applied in different areas over the world and I am
    some-times inclined to agree with Shakespeare, Kill all the lawyers but
    I think the biggest problem is that we are all human and if any-thing
    hits close to home we are going to react and be damned with the
    consequences.   
    
    joan
    
    

    
    canadians are too compassionate.

    
    Uuhhh...the justice systems on BOTH sides of the border have their
    respective difficulties, Robert.
    
    Thanks for your concern, though.   :^)
    

	well, i supposed if you're gonna have insults hurled at you,
	the ones about being "too compassionate" ain't so bad. ;>

    
    "That Collins boy...he's TOO compassionate!"   :^)
    

    .376...
    
    Being human, if anything hits close to my home, I will react.  With
    compassion for my family.
    
    It's a promise.
    
    Mike

    
    <-------
    
     You should make that "alleged" compassion.... In case someone might
    misunderstand "BEFORE" the fact and maybe send in some BATF types to
    talk to you about that compassion....
    

>                     <<< Note 44.371 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>we attract the best people to that job. Cops need laws to protect them from
>getting shot with "cop killer" bullets ("watch out, here come 100,000 lines
>from some www gun note). 

George, there are no "cop-killer bullets" not one single cop has ever been 
shot with an armour piercing round. NOT ONE, NOT EVER!
However when the dims in congress held their phoney hearings the national 
police organisations and the NRA begged Schummer/Biden to not publicise the 
soft-body armour that cops were using. those two idiots went ahead and dragged 
soft armour all over the tv screens. The next 4 police shot were taken with 
head shots. not a coiuncidence in my mind and in the opinions of some police 
officials.

Instead of inflammatory words why not stick to the truth. but being part of 
the criminal-protection crowd you'd never understand. :-}

Amos

    b-b-b-b-b-but AMOS!  It IS the truth, HONest!  Bill tol' me so!

    And yet another gruelling....

    ...punishing SNARF

    
         I was in a store this morning and a guy was "bragging" about
    his good luck. He said. "I got my $53,000 settlement yesterday." I
    said. "Neat, what happened to you for you to get insurance money
    like that?" He said. "He, he, I committed a crime and the cops hurt
    me trying to arrest me. I'm going to commit more crimes like that,
    it's fun. Very rewarding." I just walked out of the store speechless. I 
    wanted to run back in and take back the "Neat" and call him all sorts of
    names. He was bigger than me so I didn't dare. 
    
         Oh well, save the criminal and let the victims suffer. Why not?
    Maybe if everyone was a criminal then we wouldn't have any victims.
    Could be profitable for everyone that way. That ought to solve it.
    
        Rosie

    You've got lawyers and police to blame for that one.

	or maybe law makers, judges, jurors, some combination of
	the three, and police.

    
    This country has lost its commons sense...

    
        It totally baffled me. Sometimes I think that maybe I'm too
    hard on "criminals" when I think about the death penalty. I'm all
    for it. Then I think "Well, their humans too." Then I think of 
    someone that I know is a criminal and say "give the bastard the juice."
    
        Hearing this just puts me right back to "giving the bastard the
    juice." I just can't find any sympathy for anyone who's committed
    a crime. Maybe they don't all deserve "the juice". But, I can't stand
    it when someone gets away with doing something wrong, then they
    even get paid for it and it's a big joke. It's encourages them
    to do it more to make more off of the stupid justice system.   This
    jerk didn't get punished because he got a "boo boo" trying to get
    away from the cops.
    
         Rosie

In Mass. I am part of an organization that has drafted and had submitted a 
bill in the state legislature called "victim protection bill".
It basicly states that criminals injured while commiting or attempting to 
commit a felony may not sue the victim for damages or injuries sustained
due to the victim defending him/her-self. Nor may they sue for things like 
falling down stairs while in a building illegally.

No Felon should profit from his/her crime in any way.

Amos

    Amos, if I wore a hat, it would be off to you sir.

There's always your moderator's hat.

>>There's always your moderator's hat.

	the custom-fitted pointy one?  you're right.  ;>

RE           <<< Note 44.409 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    You've got lawyers and police to blame for that one.

  No, you've got a jury to blame for that one. They are the ones who decide
who should pay and who should not pay.

  George

    
       Well, it's good to hear they're working on stopping this. It really
    can piss off a lot of people hearing this. This man was blabbing it
    in a store full of people. 
    
        Rosie

    >No, you've got a jury to blame for that one.
    
     If the cops had not engaged in malfeasance, there would be no reason
    for compensation to be sought. If there were tort reform, this sort of
    thing wouldn't be allowed to happen.
    
     And as for a jury being to blame, in no place in Rose's story was
    there mention that this was a jury award (as opposed to an out of court
    settlement,) in which case the lawyers are all the more to blame.

    
        I immediately left after his remark about committing more crimes.
    I didn't bother to ask if it was judge, jury, or who awarded it to
    him. NOw I wish I got his name to report it. He plans on doing a 
    repeat obviously. 

	I get such a kick out of this blaming of lawyers for everything.
	Whence comes this notion (the Delbalso school of thought) that 
	all lawyers are scum?  It's patently absurd.  It's like saying 
	that all software engineers are dweebs.  Er.  Well, maybe that's
	a bad example. ;>

	

RE           <<< Note 44.424 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     And as for a jury being to blame, in no place in Rose's story was
>    there mention that this was a jury award (as opposed to an out of court
>    settlement,) in which case the lawyers are all the more to blame.

  There didn't have to be mention in Rose's story. That is, if it took place
in the United States.

  In a civil case like this one only a jury can award a substantial amount of
money to a plaintiff and only a defendant can agree to turn down their right to
a jury trial.

  If there was an award it was either because a jury made that award or it
was because the defendant decided he didn't want to take a chance on a jury.

  George

    >Whence comes this notion that all lawyers are scum? 
    
     I don't know if I'd say it that strongly, but they clearly have
    contributed greatly to a loss of freedoms and lower quality of life.
    
     Look at tort, look at liability. I don't see how it could be any
    clearer. 
    
     The big problem is that we have way too many lawyers. They all need
    something to do, so we are strangled by frivolous lawsuits.
    
     I must say this, however. George is right in that we need better
    juries.

  >>   The big problem is that we have way too many lawyers. They all need
  >>  something to do, so we are strangled by frivolous lawsuits.

      True.  "Too many of them" isn't their fault though.
    
  >>   I must say this, however. George is right in that we need better
  >>  juries.

      Yes, but don't you hate the way he presented his argument??  ;> 
      (just kidding, George)

RE           <<< Note 44.428 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     I don't know if I'd say it that strongly, but they clearly have
>    contributed greatly to a loss of freedoms and lower quality of life.
    
  How so?

  George

    .424
    
    > If the cops had not engaged in malfeasance, there would be no reason
    > for compensation to be sought.
    
    Assumes facts not in evidence.  Did the injured perp resist arrest? 
    His use of the phrase "trying to arrest me" suggests as much.  Cops
    are, after all, allowed to use all NECESSARY force to subdue a suspect.

    >Cops are, after all, allowed to use all NECESSARY force to subdue a
    >suspect.
    
     Of course. Had they cops only used necessary force, there would be no
    grounds for a suit. (Which doesn't mean that none would be filed.)
    Chances are that they were just a little bit zealous in their
    application of force, resulting in injuries which caused a suit which
    was settled out of court.

>	Whence comes this notion (the Delbalso school of thought) that 
>	all lawyers are scum?

<blush>

Aw, gawrsh, I can't take all the credit - it's an age-old opinion held by
many.

Any and all circumstance under which I've personally needed to deal with
them, including instances where I've retained them and in which I've "won",
have led me to conclude, based on their tactics and practices, that honesty
and remaining above-board in all things are the last areas with which they
concern themselves. They are a self perpetuating necessary evil. The ones
that we see and read about in high profile cases (and TV ad campaigns) do
little or nothing to dispel that viewpoint. When you come right down to it,
the lawyer's job/responsibility is not to do what's right or what's just,
but to do whatever they can within the law for the benefit of their client
regardless of whether or not their client is deserving. Were I not an atheist,
a system which I would prefer to lawyers, would be the spontaneous strike
of a lightening bolt in settlement of differences. Sorta keep everyone in
their place without the nasty mess the lawyers leave, doncha know.

:^)

	There are tons of dishonest, self-serving people in all professions.
	There was a time when I would have said "except the clergy", but 
	well...

	Blanket condemnation of any profession doesn't make sense to me.
	Not all politicians are corrupt, not all lawyers are scum, not all 
	mechanics try to rip you off, not all plumbers come to your house
	without the right tools.  It just seems that way.  ;>
 

That is most likely true, however, I've never met a "good" one. And that
includes friends that I grew up with who've taken up the profession. Some
of the stories that they tell about how they rooked people in various
cases they worked on are a big laugh to them, but not all that appealing
to the common man. Or, to me, anyway.

    
    
    Well Jack, you're one of the most comman men I know......
    
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    Mike
    

Aye, ya got that right, Michael. They don't come much more base than me.

    
    
    And therein lies your charm my esteemed friend.
    
    
    Mike

    .432
    
    > Of course. Had they cops only used necessary force, there would be no
    > grounds for a suit.
    
    Assumes facts not in evidence.  The cops may have used the absolute
    minimum necessary force, and the perp may have been injured when he
    twisted away in an attempt to escape.  And so on.  In a society where
    juries award multimillion-dollar settlements to people who are burned
    by McDonald's coffee or who commit B&E and are shot by the homeowners,
    common sense is clearly not the prevalent asset.

  Well .439 sums things up pretty well but I'm not so sure I agree with .440.

  George

Dick apparently caught something from Karen earlier today . . . 

>>    Hey!  Where'd all the notes go?  

    I put a note in 4, saying that I had moved them to 99 (the
    lawsuit topic).

    
    I looked, and *there* they were...GONE!
    

Just so that these don't get lost in view of the recent discussion in
this string about what's wrong with lawyers. George's statements quite
nicely support my view of their principles.


           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 99.183                    Lawsuits/Litigation                    183 of 187
HELIX::MAIEWSKI                                      10 lines  31-MAR-1995 15:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE   <<< Note 99.179 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Maybe this belongs under TTWA.  If the lady had been scalded by coffee from
>Joe's Diner instead of McDonald's, would she have sued the car manufacturer
>for not providing cup holders?

  Yes. As many plaintiff's attorney will tell you, sue everyone in sight then
see what bubbles up to the surface. 

  George

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 99.193                    Lawsuits/Litigation                    193 of 197
HELIX::MAIEWSKI                                      19 lines  31-MAR-1995 15:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE      <<< Note 99.186 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Are you in support of this practice?
>    
>    	Personally, this is one of the reasons the legal system is
>    	so contemptible.

  Yes I am and it is not a reason why the legal system is contemptible.

  Once again, we have the adversary system of justice in which the two sides
each compete to win and a judge and jury seek to apply the law and render a
just verdict.

  Now if you feel that the adversary system in principle is contemptible then
you have a point. However if you agree that the adversary system makes sense
then a plaintiff's attorney would be irresponsible for not taking the sensible
course of suing everyone in sight.

  George

    
    
    I think that the plantiff and the plantiff's attorney should be held
    financially accountable for the expenses the defendant incurred for a
    law suit.  That's stop the cretins from being so sue happy.
    
    
    Mike

RE    <<< Note 44.449 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    I think that the plantiff and the plantiff's attorney should be held
>    financially accountable for the expenses the defendant incurred for a
>    law suit.  That's stop the cretins from being so sue happy.
    
  What that would do is change the situation so that only the rich could
afford to sue anyone.

  And that is exactly why the GOP is calling for legislation to implement
this sort of thing.

  George

   
   And I take it a defendent should be held financially accountable for the
   expenses a plaintiff incurred for a law suit?
   
   Gasp.  I'd settle for a defendent being held liable for judgements in a
   law suit.
   
   								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 44.451 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

   
>   And I take it a defendent should be held financially accountable for the
>   expenses a plaintiff incurred for a law suit?
 
	This is already common practice in many civil actions.

Jim

   
|>   And I take it a defendent should be held financially accountable for the
|>   expenses a plaintiff incurred for a law suit?
| 
|	This is already common practice in many civil actions.
   
   It is already common practice for the defendent to walk away from *all*
   financial accountability.
   
   								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 44.453 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>   It is already common practice for the defendent to walk away from *all*
>   financial accountability.
 
	It's certainly possible. One reason why lawyers tend to sue people
	who actually HAVE money (or at elast good insurance).

Jim

|>   It is already common practice for the defendent to walk away from *all*
|>   financial accountability.
| 
|	It's certainly possible. One reason why lawyers tend to sue people
|	who actually HAVE money (or at elast good insurance).

    Lawyers don't sue people.  People sue people.
    
    It's one reason why a plaintiff who has an excellent case has a hard
    time finding a lawyer to take that case.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 44.455 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    It's one reason why a plaintiff who has an excellent case has a hard
>    time finding a lawyer to take that case.
 
	You can have a truly wonderful, iron-clad, slam dunk case. But
	it means little if the defendant has no assets.

Jim

|>    It's one reason why a plaintiff who has an excellent case has a hard
|>    time finding a lawyer to take that case.
| 
|	You can have a truly wonderful, iron-clad, slam dunk case. But
|	it means little if the defendant has no assets.
    
    You can have a truly wonderful, iron-clad, slam dunk case, *AND*
    it means little even *WHEN* the defendant has assets.
    
    								-mr. bill

  If you have a great case but the defendant doesn't have any money you can sue
anyway but most likely you will have to pay a retainer to get a lawyer to take
the case. 

  If there is a defendant with "deep pockets", then a lawyer can work on
contingency.

  George

  Well late last week a lawyer did get attacked in court. This should make all
you guys happy. 

  There was an arson case against a young man, I forget his name. When the
guilty verdict came in, the defendant tipped over the table and lunged for the
prosecutor. If not for the bailiffs dragging him down from behind, he may well
have had one lawyer down on the floor. 

  George

    What carnage!

  Not violent enough?

  George

    
    
    It's one thing to wish that a profession would be accountable George
    and quite another to wish injury on a person.  But you libs like using
    the melodramatics since there is no substance to your arguments so
    emote on.
    
    
    Mike

RE                      <<< Note 44.463 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    I mod my comment - just shoot the tort lawyers.

  ... both plaintiff and defense lawyers or just plaintiff lawyers?

  George

RE    <<< Note 44.464 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    It's one thing to wish that a profession would be accountable George
>    and quite another to wish injury on a person.  But you libs like using
>    the melodramatics since there is no substance to your arguments so
>    emote on.
    
  What are you talking about?

  I wasn't the one to bring this up.

  George

Tortes at fifteen paces!

    
    I'm getting hungry 8^/.

So sue me.

RE        <<< Note 14.1580 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Our system of common law dictates that the accused be entitled to a fair
>trial by a jury of their peers. I don't know that it specifies in any way
>that that requirement be occluded by attorneys. How's about the idea of
>the plaintiff and the defendant simply having at it before the judge and
>jury without "benefit" of the legal "profession". I haven't a clue how
>well it would work, but it sure would be "great fun" to see all the lawyers
>out of work.

  Well 1st of all you are confusing criminal and civil law. In criminal law
there is no plaintiff. In civil law there is no accused. So I'm not sure what
you are talking about when you talk about a plaintiff and an accused in the
same arena of jurisprudence.

  In criminal law the accused has a constitutional right to be defended by an
attorney.

  In civil law most "deep pockets" can afford to have outstanding legal
representation. The top law firms in any major city are, for the most part,
the firms that represent large corporations. As such most people trying to
sue a large company are at a disadvantage even with an attorney, never mind
without one.

  George

    
    
    Gee, that was nice, so Jack ain't a lawyer and doesn't know the jargon. 
    You know what he meant.
    
    
    Mike

  No I don't know what he meant. Is he talking about criminal cases or civil
cases?

  Anyway, just to be on the safe side I provided answers for both situations
so it's not clear what you are complaining about.

  George

    .472
    
    Wrong.  In crimnal law, the accused has the constitutional right to the
    assistance of COUNSEL (per the 6th Amendment).  Counsel is advice,
    especially that solicited from knowledgeable persons; counsel does not
    per se mean a lawyer.  Lawyers have usurped the term "counsel" the same
    way they have usurped "esquire."

RE              <<< Note 44.475 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    Wrong.  In criminal law, the accused has the constitutional right to the
>    assistance of COUNSEL (per the 6th Amendment).  Counsel is advice,
>    especially that solicited from knowledgeable persons; counsel does not
>    per se mean a lawyer.  Lawyers have usurped the term "counsel" the same
>    way they have usurped "esquire."

  According to Gabrial v. the State of Florida you have the right to an
attorney. I'd like to see a state try to convince a Federal Judge that although
the defendant was not allowed to talk to an attorney he was allowed to talk to
a "knowledgeable person" and thus the conviction should stand. 

  DOA in Federal Court,
  George

re:.472, George

Fine. Replace "accused" with "defendant" and "plaintiff" with "opposition".

There is still no requirement to have the American jurisprudence system
attended by the "legal" "profession". If legal representation were
prohibited from participation in civil actions (a very interesting
prospect worth observing, in my opinion), I fail to see what constitutional
rights might be violated. None, I venture to guess.

    There was a movie about that case, starring Henry Fonda, I think.

Re         <<< Note 44.477 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>There is still no requirement to have the American jurisprudence system
>attended by the "legal" "profession". If legal representation were
>prohibited from participation in civil actions (a very interesting
>prospect worth observing, in my opinion), I fail to see what constitutional
>rights might be violated. None, I venture to guess.

  Ok I still don't know if you are talking about criminal or civil court so
I'll prepare an answer for both.

CRIMINAL:

  States tend to hire lawyers to work as Assistant District Attorneys but they
don't have to. Are you suggesting that they do not?

  Since most ADA's are attorneys, most defendants in a criminal trial that go
to court without an attorney are at a disadvantage. Even if the ADA were not
a lawyer, ADA's tend to get a great deal of trial practice so most likely you
as a defendant would be up against someone who is in court every day. You would
still be at a major disadvantage without a lawyer.

CIVIL:

  Most "deep pockets" hire lawyers from the best law firms in town. They will
do this regardless whether you make a law saying they don't have to do this.
If you make a law saying they can't do this then a new profession will emerge
of "legal experts" (i.e. the same guys without the label "attorney") who will
then be hired by these "deep pocket" defendants (i.e. the rich).

  At this point plaintiffs will now be at a major disadvantage fighting against
the rich or large companies. What is your recourse when some company puts a
fish factory in your back yard and when you try to go to court you get over
powered by their "legal experts"?

LAWYERS:

  Conservatives tend to be against lawyers because the Government and the rich
don't need them as much as the individual or the non-rich. The Government and
the rich can afford to develop and pay for "experts" to help them with legal
matters.

  What lawyers do is they create a far more level playing field in which the
individual has a chance against the Government and the regular guy has a
chance against the rich and the corporate world.

  No wonder Republicans want to reel in the power of attorneys,
  George

What I'd like to see, "for the fun of it", doncha know, is a system
whereby the doors of every courtroom were graced with signs saying

		LAWYERS

with a big red circle around the words and a big red slash diagonally
through the middle of the circle. In the court room, before the judge
and the jury, is allowed "the defendant", and "the opposition" - single
parties, representing themselves. I'm not sure how we handle the
prosecution in criminal matters, but at least for civil matters this
seems to have the appearance of possibly working nicely.

>>         <<< Note 44.481 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

	So how would all of the obvious inequities be resolved? 
	(knowledge of law, mental abilities, things like that)

RE         <<< Note 44.481 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>In the court room, before the judge
>and the jury, is allowed "the defendant", and "the opposition" - single
>parties, representing themselves. I'm not sure how we handle the
>prosecution in criminal matters, but at least for civil matters this
>seems to have the appearance of possibly working nicely.

  What this would do is to get rid of all the honest lawyers and all the rules
governing what lawyers can and can't do while not touching the unethical
lawyers. 

  Unethical lawyers would change their title to "legal consultants" and provide
their services to the rich. Far fewer would provide their services to the
middle class. 

  Then while "consulting" during a trial, these "consultants" would be free to
do anything they liked without being subject to any sanctions that might be
brought against them by the bar association. 

  It would be a huge win for the rich and a big loss for the working class.

  George

    Re: .481
    
    "The opposition" is frequently not a single party, but a corporation. 
    Or multiple corporations.

re: .-1, Chelsea

Right. All I'm saying is that the "opposition" gets to send one, and only one,
body in to represent them as a "spokesperson", just as does the "defendant".
No team of corporate lawyers. No Board of Directors. No consortium. One
representative to sink or swim.

re: .482, Di

I'm unsure. But they certainly aren't resolved now, either. As George points out
so aptly, those with the big bucks get to hire the competent attorneys while
those without the wherewithall make do with what they can. If the "opposition"
had to send in a non-attorney as the sole representative, it might be somewhat
interesting to see them make an ass of themselves in front of the jury, though.

         <<< Note 44.486 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

Di raised a very good point. Would eliminating lawyers resolve the 
inequities that have nothing to do with the merits of the case? Hardly. In 
fact, (as George accurately pointed out) the balance of power would be even 
more tipped in favor of the rich.

> If the "opposition"
> had to send in a non-attorney as the sole representative, it might be somewhat
> interesting to see them make an ass of themselves in front of the jury, though.

You can bet you arse the major corporation isn't going to send a secretary 
to represent them - or even worse, a VP. No, they would send their "legal 
affairs specialist" who has as much legal experience and knowledge as their 
lawyers have today. 

If I have a good case and the likely reward is high enough, even a schlep 
like me can afford a top-notch attorney, because they'll work quid pro quo.
Which puts me on at least a near-equal footing with the big boys.

I'm amazed at the number of people in this forum of professed free thinkers 
who have jumped on the conservative repub/liberal media anti-lawyer 
bandwagon without really thinking it through.

Tom

You're missing the point entirely. If neither side has the legal option
to bring a "lawyer"/"Attorney"/"Legal expert" into the court room, the
purpose might be well served. The point is to have the judge/jury decide
the case based on a presentation by other than lawyers

Suppose one of the principals _is_ a lawyer.

If we had a jurisprudence system which forbade the use of lawyers, why
would there be any lawyers? The whole concept I've been trying to get
at was "what if we didn't have lawyers?" Is this difficult to grasp?
Quite obviously so, since it's so ingrained in our culture that Lawyers
"have to" exist. Picture if you will, a society that doesn't have them
and doesn't allow them. Picture primitive societies that don't make
use of them. Now apply that to our society. This whole thing started
out with my contention that there is no "Law" which requires we have
them. I still feel we'd collectively all be better off without them.
I have yet to see the case why, if they didn't exist, justice could
not be served.

>>You're missing the point entirely. If neither side has the legal option
>>to bring a "lawyer"/"Attorney"/"Legal expert" into the court room, the
>>purpose might be well served. The point is to have the judge/jury decide
>>the case based on a presentation by other than lawyers

	What if one of the two can barely speak English, has an IQ of
	85, or has some other problem that means he can't make a reasonable
	presentation to a judge/jury?  Then what?  No lawyers, not legal
	experts, no nothin'?  Why doesn't everyone just install their
	own 220 lines?  I don't get it, Jack.  How could that work,
	given the complex, at times unfathomable, set of laws we have in
	this country?

>	given the complex, at times unfathomable, set of laws we have in
>	this country?

Who do we have to thank for those?

>>Who do we have to thank for those?

	Well, that doesn't answer my questions, but are you proposing
	that we throw away the laws, too, and start over?  If not, then
	someone has to understand them.  Are we all supposed to study
	law for a few years, so we can defend ourselves (or sue others)?

    >Quite obviously so, since it's so ingrained in our culture that Lawyers
    >"have to" exist. Picture if you will, a society that doesn't have them
    >and doesn't allow them. Picture primitive societies that don't make

    Jack,

    To borrow an argument from the gun control topic, the genie
    is out of the bottle; namely, a lot of people already
    know how to be lawyers, some especially dangerous people
    even know how to make them. :-)

    A no lawyer legal system in America is an impossibility
    unless we trash the organizing documents (the Constitution)
    and start over with another form of government...

    And not to change the subject too drastically Jack, but
    what's up with these baby _and_ the bathwater solutions
    lately? Is it your opinion that our society is so badly
    messed up that we have trash most of what we have? I look
    at our government and society and, while it is far from
    perfect, it is also far from terrible, and my closet is
    chock full of the things I need to help straighten it
    out if and when it really does go down the loo...

    -b

    Yeah and not only that there would be no miracle on 34th Street.

|  what if we didn't have lawyers?
   
   Two words - Colin Ferguson.
   
   								-mr. bill

	That's it - no lawyers and no doctors!  Brilliant! ;>
	Imagine having to sue yourself for malpractice though.

>   Two words - Colin Ferguson.

What Colin did to himself for want of a lawyer is goodness, though, Bill.
Even without a prosecuting attorney, I believe Colin would have hung himself.
More of the same would be welcome.

	Colin Ferguson is a stupid example for either side of the
	argument - an aberration.  Paranoid, delusional guy with
	a truckload of eye-witnesses to his crime.    

>	Colin Ferguson is a stupid example for either side of the
>	argument - an aberration.  Paranoid, delusional guy with
>	a truckload of eye-witnesses to his crime.    

Good thing Glenn's not a criminal!  He'd fit the bill to a T.  Does the
fifth amendment cover multiple personalities testifying against each other?

>    A no lawyer legal system in America is an impossibility

Of course it is, Brian. I never claimed otherwise. I only opined that
if things had been done differently to begin with, we might well be better
off. Specifically, we wouldn't have the likes of George running around
telling us how blessed and fortunate we were to have society overrun
by the slimeballs in the legal profession. :^)

>    what's up with these baby _and_ the bathwater solutions
>    lately? Is it your opinion that our society is so badly
>    messed up that we have trash most of what we have?

What's up is that 99.99% of the things we continually talk about in here
won't be changed one iota by anything that's said in here anyway, so why
not propose the preposterous? Even the preposterous offers more potential
than the apathetic clinging to the status quo which is basically what we
are faced with on far too many fronts.

Do I expect any of the preposterous things I propose to come about? For
the eleventeenth time, "Of course not". But, at least I can make it clear
exactly how opposed I am to what we have, rather than putting forth the
front that I'm comfortable living with it. Because, I'm not. And far too
many people are, as evidenced by the responses.

>	Well, that doesn't answer my questions, but are you proposing
>	that we throw away the laws, too, and start over?  If not, then
>	someone has to understand them.  Are we all supposed to study
>	law for a few years, so we can defend ourselves (or sue others)?

None of the above. What's wrong with admitting we've gotten ourselves into
a hole courtesy of the legal profession?

>>Do I expect any of the preposterous things I propose to come about? For
>>the eleventeenth time, "Of course not". But, at least I can make it clear
>>exactly how opposed I am to what we have, rather than putting forth the
>>front that I'm comfortable living with it. Because, I'm not. And far too
>>many people are, as evidenced by the responses.

	So if people argue against your self-proclaimed preposterous
	proposals, that means they're happy with the status quo?  
	Nonsense.

>>None of the above. What's wrong with admitting we've gotten ourselves into
>>a hole courtesy of the legal profession?

	We've gotten ourselves into a hole courtesy of more players
	than just the legal profession.  

   Psssst.  On Colin Ferguson.
   
   
   If a dream team of dream teams represented Colin Ferguson, he would have
   been convicted.
   
   If a high priced lawyer represented Colin Ferguson, he would have been
   convicted.
   
   If an average schmuck lawyer represented Colin Ferguson, he would have
   been convicted.
   
   If a coke sniffing alcohol abusing lawyer three days away from losing
   his licence represented Colin Ferguson, he would have been convicted.
   
   If a public defender represented Colin Ferguson, he would have been
   convicted.
   
   If Colin Ferguson represented Colin Ferguson, well, we all know
   he was convicted.
   
   
   So, your point is that by doing away with the lawyers, we would
   gain what?
   
   								-mr. bill

>	So if people argue against your self-proclaimed preposterous
>	proposals, that means they're happy with the status quo?  
>	Nonsense.

No - not when people simply argue against my preposterous proposals, but
when people argue that what we have is completely acceptable and my proposal
is unnecessary because we should leave things the way they are.

There isn't just a single set of arguments being managed here. I continue
to seek a middle ground. Some people, yourself included, appear to have
a similar goal. Others claim that everything's hunkey-dorey.

>	We've gotten ourselves into a hole courtesy of more players
>	than just the legal profession.  

How 'bout - "the legal profession and their sponsors and benefactors"?

>   So, your point is that by doing away with the lawyers, we would
>   gain what?


You were the one who brought up the point that we'd have more Colin Fergusons
without lawyers, Bill. How the hell should I know what you were getting at?
:^)

   
   I didn't say we'd have more Colin Fergusons.
   
   I said "Colin Ferguson".
   
   
   Oddly enough, my sense of justice was not satisfied at all by the
   spectacle of such "representation."
   
   But my sense of justice would have been satisfied if he had been
   represented by just about anyone.
   
   
   You see, I've this odd feeling that cases should be decided on the
   merits of the case.  Not the merits of the defendent or plaintiff,
   or defendent and prosecutor.
   
   
   In this case, the ends turned out fine.  But the means were wrong.
   And I'm completely confident that the right means would have produced
   exactly the same end.
   
   								-mr. bill

   
   
>   In this case, the ends turned out fine.  But the means were wrong.
>   And I'm completely confident that the right means would have produced
>   exactly the same end.

	Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that.  That case was harldy
	representative of the norm though.  A no-brainer case.

>>How 'bout - "the legal profession and their sponsors and benefactors"?

	If you're including the greedy, unscrupulous members of the
	public who'll sue at the drop of a hat, which it sounds as 
	though you must be with the term "benefactors", then sure - that's
	better.

You got it.

>>to seek a middle ground. Some people, yourself included, appear to have
>>a similar goal. Others claim that everything's hunkey-dorey.

	Who are all these "everything's hunkey-dorey" people?  I must
	have missed their replies.

Geeziz - you been "Next Unseening" George too?
:^)

Can't be.  Moderators are required to read every word of every note so as
to catch the dirty ones.

	I don't worry about George being profane, so I _could_ skip his
	notes, but they're often a source of some amusement, so I don't.
	But anyways, I don't think even George would say that things are
	"hunkey-dorey".  

You give him far more credit than he is due. Reread some of his meanderings
about how the American judicial and legal system is a centerpiece to serve
as a model for the rest of the world.

         <<< Note 44.488 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

I realize I'm perpetuating Soapbox p*ssing contest # 1239849849849892891,
but...

> You're missing the point entirely. If neither side has the legal option
> to bring a "lawyer"/"Attorney"/"Legal expert" into the court room, the
> purpose might be well served. The point is to have the judge/jury decide
> the case based on a presentation by other than lawyers

No, you're missing the point. It's not just that we've got lawyers now so 
we can't get rid of them. It's that a large corporation will always have 
the resources to play the system to its advantage -- whatever the system 
you come up with. You and I won't. 

And it's not just - or even primarily - greedy lawyers and clients who have 
created our litigious state of affairs. No small measure of responsibility 
falls on the callous disregard for the welfare of others by individuals and 
enterprises. We just happen to live in one of the first systems on the 
planet that gave your average victim an avenue to fight back.

Before you shove me into you "status quo lover" box, let me say that we 
have indeed gone too far. Some measure of reform is in order. But the GOP's 
cure is a blunt instrument that clobbers the little guy and takes a lot of 
pressure off of industry, doctors, etc. to keep their eye on the ball. If 
you think that's in your best interest, you are mistaken - IMHO of course.

	.517

	Okay, but to some degree I give him the benefit of the doubt, in
	that I assume his support is for the system itself and not for its
	current state of implementation and the abuses of it that abound.
	Maybe I'm wrong - I don't know. 

RE         <<< Note 44.488 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>You're missing the point entirely. If neither side has the legal option
>to bring a "lawyer"/"Attorney"/"Legal expert" into the court room, the
>purpose might be well served. The point is to have the judge/jury decide
>the case based on a presentation by other than lawyers

  Ok, Try to think this through. 

  United Giant Inc. purchases the property behind your house and uses it for
dumping sludge which contaminates your water supply. You go get a book on how
to file a law suit, type out the complaint on your P.C. and file it at district
court. You even have the sense to ask for an injunction preventing United
Giant from dumping any more sludge until the case goes to trial. 

  Then one day you arrive home to find that a truck has backed up to your door
and left you about 1000 legal documents including a request that you provide
them with thousands of pages worth of information as part of "discovery". So
far, no one has stepped inside a court. 

  You go to pretrial meetings and it is you alone against one "employee" of
United Giant Inc. Just you and him. Funny, he seems to have a lot of friends
in suits sitting in the gallery but that's ok, the public is invited.

  This "employee" who describes himself as a ... let's see ... a legal clerk
... no wait, two risky, ... ok, "Assistant Director of Public Relations" for
United Giant Inc asks that charges be dropped because you have failed to
present a prima fascia case for a tort and also claims they can't proceed
because you have failed to comply with discovery. You don't know what he's
talking about but the judge does, he agrees, and that's the end of your case. 

  Now that's the simple example. If you did manage to get past the pretrial
hearings you would get hammered by this ... "Assistant Director of Public
Relations" at trial. Funny but every time you would ask a question he'd object
with reasoning along the lines of "leading the witness", "non-responsive",
"assumes facts not in evidence", etc and once again you wouldn't understand
what he was talking about but the judge would uphold his objections.

  You'd have no chance. Your back yard would reek of sludge and there is no
way that you would ever get past discovery never mind get into court. About
your only recourse would be to take the ton of paper this "Assistant Director
of Public Relations" had sent to your house and dump it in your back yard to
cover up the smell. 

  George

>>Funny but every time you would ask a question he'd object
>>with reasoning along the lines of "leading the witness", "non-responsive",
>>"assumes facts not in evidence", etc and once again you wouldn't understand
>>what he was talking about....

	Just as an aside, I wouldn't sell Jack this short.  No way.  ;>

RE         <<< Note 44.517 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>You give him far more credit than he is due. Reread some of his meanderings
>about how the American judicial and legal system is a centerpiece to serve
>as a model for the rest of the world.

  I never said that. What I said was that it is imperfect but I don't see a
better one around anywhere.

  George

RE    <<< Note 44.521 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	Just as an aside, I wouldn't sell Jack this short.  No way.  ;>

  Jack didn't know that there were no cases that had both a plaintiff and an
accused. He doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. My
guess is that he doesn't even know what "discovery" is, never mind how to
comply with it.

  And even if he does, the point is, the "one guy" representing United Giant
will be a former lawyer, regardless of what he is really called, who will have
a room full of former lawyers to back him up. If there is one thing standing
out in Jack's argument that shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about
it is that he clearly doesn't understand that 95% to 99% of what's important in
determining who wins a case happens outside of the court room. 

  The individual with no legal experience would have no chance in a situation
like that. 

  George

    .520
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAA!!
    
    A "prima fascia" case must have something to do with architecture, or
    maybe art, or perhaps medicine.  But it wouldn't have anything to do
    with sludge-dumping.
    
    Or did you mean "prima facie"?  I'm amazed at you, George, pretending
    to be a paralegal and not even capable of using the terms correctly.

	re: .523

	George, I knew what your point was, and I agree for the most part.
	That's why I said "Just as an aside...".  

re: .520, George

Now go back and reframe that entire diatribe in a context wherein there
are no lawyers, no books on civil law written for and by lawyers, no
long tradition of civil court cases full of precedents and findings.
In short, go back and reframe it in the context of a society which
has existed without the legal profession. Reframe it in the context
of, perhaps, the Australian aborigines prior to the arrival of Europeans
in the 16 century or so. Or primitive African tribes of today who
exist within their own societies (exclusive of their national governments)
without a civil court system as we know it. When you've done that and
posted it, I'll respond if there's anything left to respond to. In the
meantime, kindly note that you continue to ignore the fact that I've
been speaking in the context of a society which hasn't had "the benefit"
of generation upon generation of legal "professionals", and hence your
current argument is inapplicable. If you think I'm about to waste my
time and energy responding to ploys which are contrived out of the
context of my position, you've got another think to thunk, pilgrim.

>  Jack didn't know that there were no cases that had both a plaintiff and an
>accused. He doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. My
>guess is that he doesn't even know what "discovery" is, never mind how to
>comply with it.

Or maybe he doesn't care. Or maybe he does know, but can't use the appropriate
terms since it would require more research energy that he feels is appropriate.
Now, you could claim that that's despicable, but then we could get back to
the "Does spelling really count topic" wherein we could wipe up the floor
with you again for a few rounds, so that's probably all immaterial.

>  And even if he does, the point is, the "one guy" representing United Giant
>will be a former lawyer, regardless of what he is really called, who will have
>a room full of former lawyers to back him up.

And it's clear that you still missed the point and the context I've implied
all along which is the assumption of a society that NEVER HAD LAWYERS.

> 95% to 99% of what's important in determining who wins a case happens
> outside of the court room. 

In the modern lawyer-dominated legal system of today this may very well be.
Prove to me how that would be the case in a system such as I proposed.

Do you always fail to pay attention this well?

   <<< Note 14.1580 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>How's about the idea of
>the plaintiff and the defendant simply having at it before the judge and
>jury without "benefit" of the legal "profession". I haven't a clue how
>well it would work, but it sure would be "great fun" to see all the lawyers
>out of work.


	Jack, so this proposal was not to be discussed as it was made?
	(i.e., within the context of a current-day setting?)

That was an interesting diversion, but not in the context of the basic
proposal.

>>That was an interesting diversion, but not in the context of the basic
>>proposal.

	The basic proposal was not to get rid of lawyers - put a "no lawyers"
	sign on the courtroom door, have plaintiff and defendant go at it
	sans counsel, and all that?  Then I have totally missed the point
	and I take back everything I've said for the past two days about the
	subject. ;>

RE              <<< Note 44.524 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    Or did you mean "prima facie"?  I'm amazed at you, George, pretending
>    to be a paralegal and not even capable of using the terms correctly.

  Judging from the fact that you have tossed in a spelling complaint with no
logical argument, I assume you are incapable of arguing against the point that
I am making

  BAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA,
  George

    .531
    
    No, George, I can argue against you all day long, but I've learned that
    I can obtain better results by arguing against a granite cliff, so I
    refrain.

RE         <<< Note 44.526 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>In the
>meantime, kindly note that you continue to ignore the fact that I've
>been speaking in the context of a society which hasn't had "the benefit"
>of generation upon generation of legal "professionals", and hence your
>current argument is inapplicable. 

  So what's the point? The fact is that we do have that legal tradition.

  If you want to start all over then fine, but you have to replace it with
something. What do you propose?

  How do parties get the evidence they need to conduct their case?

  What rules, if any, do they follow in court?

  If you keep the jury system, you will still have to face the problem that
the "one guy" working for the large company will understand far more than
the average citizen about how to manipulate a jury.

  George

>	The basic proposal was not to get rid of lawyers - put a "no lawyers"
>	sign on the courtroom door, have plaintiff and defendant go at it
>	sans counsel, and all that?  Then I have totally missed the point
>	and I take back everything I've said for the past two days about the
>	subject. ;>


At this point, I have to admit some confusion on my own part. I think I've
been discussing the same concept in two strings. In one of the discussions
I've been proposing "get rid of the lawyers" and in another "What if we'd
never had them to begin with?". My apologies if I've gotten the discussions
intertwined.

    .533
    
    Jack is posing what's called a hypothetical question, George.  Before
    you can get down to arguing implementation of a lawyerless system, you
    first have to get agreement that such a thing a) can exist and b) isn't
    the same thing as a system that's had lawyers but decides to do away
    with them.  Until .533, Jack has not been able to get admission of
    either of these points from you.  Are you now accepting the premise as
    put forth?

RE         <<< Note 44.527 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Or maybe he doesn't care. Or maybe he does know, but can't use the appropriate
>terms since it would require more research energy that he feels is appropriate.
>Now, you could claim that that's despicable, but then we could get back to
>the "Does spelling really count topic" wherein we could wipe up the floor
>with you again for a few rounds, so that's probably all immaterial.

  No you are wrong. There is a big difference. My spelling doesn't matter
because this is a junk debate file that means nothing to anyone but ourselves.
By contrast, if you were to make those mistakes in a court of law then they
would matter because they are not simply meaningless spelling errors, they
are the basic rules of law by which the system works.

>And it's clear that you still missed the point and the context I've implied
>all along which is the assumption of a society that NEVER HAD LAWYERS.

  Still you have to replace the system we have with something new. And that
something new is going to have rules which some people will learn and others
will not. The "deep pockets" will always be able to afford to hire someone
who knows the ropes.

>In the modern lawyer-dominated legal system of today this may very well be.
>Prove to me how that would be the case in a system such as I proposed.

  Winning an argument before an impartial judge of any kind takes preparation.
That side which has the best evidence, the best expert testimony, which has
done the best preparation is always going to impress a judge who sits in a
court every day regardless of the rules. And knowing his rules only improves
on that advantage.

  The rich will always be better prepared in those areas because under any
system you devise they will have the money to hire an "expert employee" to
be their "one guy" in your court and they will have the money and expertise
to learn your new system and prepare their case.

  George

>  Winning an argument before an impartial judge of any kind takes preparation.

What impresses a tribal chieftain in Papua, New Guinea, George? I'll be willing
to bet that it's not "preparation".

    .536
    
    > if you were to make those mistakes in a court of law then they
    > would matter because they are not simply meaningless spelling errors, they
    > are the basic rules of law by which the system works.
    
    Which is precisely why I laugh at your spelling here.  You don't
    misspell intentionally, as some of us do.  It follows, then, that if
    you write "prima fascia" when you write here, you're not going to write
    "prima facie" when it matters.  You're going to write "prima fascia"
    then, too, and you are going to look like a complete nincompoop instead
    of merely a possibly intelligent person who's politically misguided.

>  No you are wrong. There is a big difference. My spelling doesn't matter
>because this is a junk debate file that means nothing to anyone but ourselves.
>By contrast, if you were to make those mistakes in a court of law then they
>would matter because they are not simply meaningless spelling errors, they
>are the basic rules of law by which the system works.

No - YOU are wrong. You're right about the fact that this is a junk debate
file. And that's where I'm discussing it. Who's proposing that I'll ever have
the need to be standing on my own two feet in a court of law blathering
this stuff?

And I thought _I_ was supposed to be the one out of touch with reality for
pursuing this nonsense. . . . 
 

Re              <<< Note 44.532 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    No, George, I can argue against you all day long, but I've learned that
>    I can obtain better results by arguing against a granite cliff, so I
>    refrain.

  Poor you, you can't win your arguments when I'm around

  Life is tough but because I am a bleeding heart liberal you can rest assured
I'll stay up all night worrying about this.

  George

George, "Talk to you, talk to the wall" isn't a compliment.

RE              <<< Note 44.535 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    Jack is posing what's called a hypothetical question, George.  Before
>    you can get down to arguing implementation of a lawyerless system, you
>    first have to get agreement that such a thing a) can exist and b) isn't
>    the same thing as a system that's had lawyers but decides to do away
>    with them.  Until .533, Jack has not been able to get admission of
>    either of these points from you.  Are you now accepting the premise as
>    put forth?

  I think that what ever system you implement, people will quickly discover
that they need rules by which they conduct their proceedings. I also believe
that as judges become experienced with the new system and spend day after day
listening to cases, they will appreciate those in which the participants come
prepared with evidence, stick to the facts, follow the rules, and provide
expert opinion.

  It is inevitable that people who participate in these proceedings will become
more experienced and develop an expertise that others don't have which they
will be able to market to the rich.

  Now if you establish rules of conduct for these people, then by definition
you will have recreated lawyers. The only way to avoid having them become
lawyers is to leave them unregulated but remember, they will still be the
same bunch of guys.

  So what you end up with is lawyers without sanctions,
  George

RE         <<< Note 44.537 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>What impresses a tribal chieftain in Papua, New Guinea, George? I'll be willing
>to bet that it's not "preparation".

  I have no idea what impresses a chieftain in Papua, New Guinea. If you
believe Melville they would be impressed by who, not what, goes into the pot.

  Now there's a system of justice for us to look toward with a curious
combination of envy and pride. If you sue United Giant for dumping sludge
in your back yard and you do not prevail, you go promptly into the pot along
with peppers, onion and other summer greens.

  George

RE              <<< Note 44.538 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>You don't
>    misspell intentionally, as some of us do.  It follows, then, that if
>    you write "prima fascia" when you write here, you're not going to write
>    "prima facie" when it matters.  You're going to write "prima fascia"
>    then, too, and you are going to look like a complete nincompoop instead
>    of merely a possibly intelligent person who's politically misguided.

  Exactly, which is why I would never think of going to court without hiring
a lawyer.

  But under the system being proposed here, I would have no choice so I would
get laughed out of court no matter how just my cause, just as I get laughed
at here even when my argument is so much better than yours.

  George

    > just as I get laughed at here even when my argument is so much better
    > than yours.
    
    How would you know?  That's never happened.
    
    DougO

  <--- DougO drifts once again into la-la-land,

  George

    .544
    
    > Exactly, which is why I would never think of going to court without hiring
    > a lawyer.
    
    I hate to break this to you, George, but there is a vast difference
    between a lawyer and a spelling checker.  And the point of having a
    lawyerless society means that highfalutin' phrases like "prima facie"
    will carry no more weight than their English-language equivalents. 
    Perhaps they'll carry less, as a judge, who himself or herself is not a
    lawyer, might feel that the party using such stuff is trying to overawe
    the court by displaying a superior knowledge and, presumably, intellect.
     
    "Prima facie," for example, is a Latin ablative absolute that means
    literally "at first appearance," and its use in law is to indicate
    evidence that is obviously valid without being verified.  So why can't
    our lawyerless society say something like "self-evident" or even
    "obvious"?  Too easy for you?

RE              <<< Note 44.547 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    "Prima facie," for example, is a Latin ablative absolute that means
>    literally "at first appearance," and its use in law is to indicate
>    evidence that is obviously valid without being verified.  So why can't
>    our lawyerless society say something like "self-evident" or even
>    "obvious"?  Too easy for you?

  It's legal jargon. With a couple thousand years of evolution I guess we've
dragged along a few words from the past.

  But what makes you think that your new system of "legal consultants for the
rich" is going to have any less of a tendency to create jargon than lawyers
have created over the past 2-3 millennium? Take a look at our own back yard,
you'd have to look long and hard to find a more jargon ridden area than the
computer industry.

  George

    .548
    
    > But what makes you think that your new system of "legal consultants
    > for the rich" is going to have any less of a tendency to create
    > jargon...?
    
    George, we might have a system like that used by the race called the
    Gowachin in Frank Herbert's book "The Dosadi Experiment."
    
    In the Gowachin Courtarena, judges are prohibited from being legal
    experts; the panel of judges (never a single judge) can even be
    assembled by pulling people off the street.  All judges must be
    acceptable to both parties in the case.  Legal jargon is worthless
    because the judges don't know what the buzzwords mean.  (No mention was
    made in the book of juries, but surely we can extend the "non-expert"
    requirement to all jury members as well.)
    
    What makes the "non-expert" requirement work is the system under which
    all participants in the Courtarena - the parties, their legums (yes,
    they have lawyers), the witnesses, the judges, even the people in the
    gallery - are at risk of life.  A judge's life, for example, becomes
    the property of a legum who can demonstrate that the judge is in fact a
    legal expert; and the legum can take the judge's life on the spot or
    sell him into slavery, or whatever else is desired.  There's lots of
    motivation to be open and aboveboard in such a system!
    
    Our legal system, on its best day, is so cumbersome that the judge
    presiding over a trial must minutely instruct the jury on the salient
    points of law.  And even the most upright judges virtually never point
    out that the jury is within its legal rights to return an acquittal
    based on the jury's decision that the law in question is not valid.
    
    We've GOT to change things.  And doing something to blast the present
    cast-in-concrete old-boy network out of existence might just be the
    right start.

RE              <<< Note 44.549 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    In the Gowachin Courtarena, judges are prohibited from being legal
>    experts; the panel of judges (never a single judge) can even be
>    assembled by pulling people off the street.  

  We have that today. It's called a jury.

>All judges must be
>    acceptable to both parties in the case.  

  Good luck impaneling your judges. As it is jury selection can go on for
hours. If you allow unlimited challenges one side will simply not accept
anyone who is not predisposed to their point of view.

>A judge's life, for example, becomes
>    the property of a legum who can demonstrate that the judge is in fact a
>    legal expert; and the legum can take the judge's life on the spot or
>    sell him into slavery, or whatever else is desired.  There's lots of 
>   motivation to be open and aboveboard in such a system!

  Now let me get this straight. You want to live in a society in which you can
get pulled into a jury at a moments notice and if IN THE OPINION of one of the
litigants you are biased they can kill or enslave you on the spot? <~chill~>

>    Our legal system, on its best day, is so cumbersome that the judge
>    presiding over a trial must minutely instruct the jury on the salient
>    points of law.  And even the most upright judges virtually never point
>    out that the jury is within its legal rights to return an acquittal
>    based on the jury's decision that the law in question is not valid.

  Yes and it is all above board. We can elect anyone we wish to create those
laws, they are all written down for everyone to read, and we have a guarantee
that if we ever have to go to court those laws will be followed.

  What guarantees exist in your system? How do you know that the trial will be
conducted according to rules that are the will of the people if there is no
one in the room who knows what rules the people or their representatives have
enacted?

>    We've GOT to change things.  And doing something to blast the present
>    cast-in-concrete old-boy network out of existence might just be the
>    right start.

  Your system would be far more prone to old boy networks than the current
system. Everything is secret, no one knows the rules. This group of legum,
who ever they are, get to act at random with no checks and balances killing
and enslaving people at will, wow, what a system.

  George

    .550

    >> In the Gowachin Courtarena, judges are prohibited from being legal
    >> experts; the panel of judges (never a single judge) can even be
    >> assembled by pulling people off the street.  

    > We have that today. It's called a jury.
    
    Not exactly.  In our system, the jury does not control the conduct of
    the court and its officers.  The jury cannot rule on the admissibility
    of evidence or of witnesses.
    
    >> All judges must be acceptable to both parties in the case.
    
    > Good luck impaneling your judges. As it is jury selection can go on for
    > hours. If you allow unlimited challenges one side will simply not accept
    > anyone who is not predisposed to their point of view.

    Well, the Gowachin system does presuppose that the legums are honorable
    enough to WANT to find unbiased judges.  I realize, with full knowledge
    of the irony here, that such is not the case with our system.  In the
    Gowachin system, however, where a legum's life is forfeit if it can be
    shown that he empanelled a biased judge, there is a great incentive to
    be straight.
    
    >> A judge's life, for example, becomes
    >> the property of a legum who can demonstrate that the judge is in fact a
    >> legal expert; and the legum can take the judge's life on the spot or
    >> sell him into slavery, or whatever else is desired.  There's lots of 
    >> motivation to be open and aboveboard in such a system!

    > Now let me get this straight. You want to live in a society in which
    > you can get pulled into a jury at a moments notice and if IN THE
    > OPINION of one of the litigants you are biased they can kill or enslave
    > you on the spot? <~chill~>

    No.  A legum must PROVE irrefutably that such a judge violated the law;
    he can't simply THINK such is the case.  And the Courtarena as a whole
    must agree with him.  Again, the system relies on honor, and that alone
    sets it apart from our system, which relies on deception and chicanery.
    
    >> Our legal system, on its best day, is so cumbersome that the judge
    >> presiding over a trial must minutely instruct the jury on the salient
    >> points of law.  And even the most upright judges virtually never point
    >> out that the jury is within its legal rights to return an acquittal
    >> based on the jury's decision that the law in question is not valid.

    > Yes and it is all above board.
    
    No, it is not.  The point I cited is sufficient proof that it's not all
    aboveboard.  You can't expect the jury to know beforehand that it has
    the right to vitiate a law that it deems wrong.  Any criminal court
    judge who fails to so instruct a jury has in actual fact committed a
    breach of justice becasue he has not provided ALL possible avenues for
    the fair treatment of the accused.  Wanna start calling them on it?
    
    > We can elect anyone we wish to create
    > those laws...
    
    True.
    
    > they are all written down for everyone to read...
    
    Sure.  Every citizen who's earned a law degree can read them.  The rest
    of us can't understand the deliberately obfuscatory language they're
    worded in.  Whyizzit that the Constitution is less than 20 pages while
    the Billary Health Bill was over 1,000?  It's because the Constitution
    was written to be read and understood by the common educated person of
    the time.
    
    > and we have
    > a guarantee that if we ever have to go to court those laws will be
    > followed.

    Right.  They'll be followed so thoroughly that a PROVEN guilty perp can
    walk for something as little has having his name spelled wrong on the
    indictment.  It happened in Miami, in a case where the DEA took a
    previously convicted pusher in the act of selling them a kilo.
    
    > What guarantees exist in your system? How do you know that the trial
    > will be conducted according to rules that are the will of the people if
    > there is no one in the room who knows what rules the people or their
    > representatives have enacted?

    The guarantee is that the system is so simple that EVERYBODY knows the
    rules.  It's taught from early childhood, and it's not so arcane and
    tortuous as to be incomprehensible.  We need so many legal experts only
    because our laws are complicated enough that ordinary people can't make
    head or tail of them.
    
    Remember, this is a HYPOTHETICAL discussion.

RE              <<< Note 44.551 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    Not exactly.  In our system, the jury does not control the conduct of
>    the court and its officers.  The jury cannot rule on the admissibility
>    of evidence or of witnesses.

  Nor do they in your system. If they don't do what the Legums want them
to do they get murdered or enslaved.
    
>In the
>    Gowachin system, however, where a legum's life is forfeit if it can be
>    shown that he empanelled a biased judge, there is a great incentive to
>    be straight.

  And who makes that decision? What if there is honest disagreement between
the legum and who ever else as to whether the judge was biased?

>    No.  A legum must PROVE irrefutably that such a judge violated the law;
>    he can't simply THINK such is the case.  And the Courtarena as a whole
>    must agree with him.  Again, the system relies on honor, and that alone
>    sets it apart from our system, which relies on deception and chicanery.

  And how do you guarantee that once this system is put in place the legums
running the system will always be honorable? Who appoints the legums? Judges
are appointed by elected leaders and confirmed by elected representatives,
do you have a better system in mind for figuring out who is honest and who
is not?
    
>    Sure.  Every citizen who's earned a law degree can read them.  The rest
>    of us can't understand the deliberately obfuscatory language they're
>    worded in.  

  So who writes the laws under your system? How do you know the same thing
won't happen?

>    The guarantee is that the system is so simple that EVERYBODY knows the
>    rules.  It's taught from early childhood, and it's not so arcane and
>    tortuous as to be incomprehensible.  We need so many legal experts only
>    because our laws are complicated enough that ordinary people can't make
>    head or tail of them.

  And who wrote those laws? Representatives elected by the people. Who is going
to write the laws under your system? How do you know the same thing will not
happen?
    
>    Remember, this is a HYPOTHETICAL discussion.

  Fine unless you stipulate that hypothetical means unworkable we still have
a discussion. Unless you make a fundamental change in the way laws are
created, the same type of people are going to get elected and will recreate
the same types of laws.

  George

    
    On August 17th, Mumia Abu-Jamal is scheduled to be executed for the
    murder of a police officer in Philadelphia in late 1981.
    
    *Apparently*, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that
    he was framed for the murder by police who were sick and tired of 
    the criticisms he has leveled against them from his forum as an 
    award-winning radio journalist.
    
    *Apparently*, his trial was a sham.
    
    Anybody know more about this than I?
    
    Anybody care?
    

    Evidence shmevidence.

    If we hadda fryed him earlier instead of waiting 14 years,
    we wouldn't have to worry about this bleeding-heart liberal
    "evidence."  You gonna throw out a perfectly good trial AT
    TAXPAYER EXPENSE just because some officer (who works HARD)
    was just a little overzealous in his job??

    You gonna sit there and tell me the cops LIED?  BS.  They got
    'im with the goods, and now he's gonna squeek on a technicality.

    Where's the justice in this system?

    \john

    
    	If he's innocent I hope he walks.
    
    	But why do these things take 14 years to complete?
    

    
    .554:
    
    That's a windup, right?  As I asked, does anyone know anything more
    about the case than what I've heard?  The article I read noted the 
    following points:
    
    - Philly police did not investigate reports of additional perps at
      the scene
    
    - Defendant was allocated $150 to prepare his defence
    
    - The defendant was removed as his own counsel and the trial judge
      appointed a lawyer who repeatedly requested to be removed from the
      case, stating that he was unprepared.  That same lawyer was later
      disbarred on another matter.
    
    - Prosecution excluded several blacks from the jury (11 white, one
      black), while the defence lawyer failed to challenge a juror who's
      best friend was a former Philly cop on disability after being shot.
    
    - A prostitute witness was offerred immunity in exchange for identifying
      the defendant as the shooter.
    
    - No tests were done on the defendant's gun to see if it had been
      fired, nor was the defendant's hand checked for signs of having
      fired a gun.
    
    - In asking for the death penalty, the prosecution played down the
      seriousness of the sentence by stating that there would be "appeal
      after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or
      whatever, so that may not be final".  That same prosecutor has since
      had another case thrown out for making that same kind of statement.
      SCOTUS has specifically condemned such statements.
    
    - The defendant's previous association with the Black Panthers was used
      as evidence that he desired to kill a cop.
    
    - Philadelphia's `Fraternal Order of Police' have been waging a public
      campaign in support of the defendant's death sentence, alleging that
      he had turned to the slain officer's widow and smiled when the
      officer's bloody t-shirt was displayed in court.  Transcripts show
      that the defendant was not in court at that time.
    
    
    If this stuff is bunk, I'd be happy to hear contrary evidence.
    
    jc   
    
    

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics


         STATE AND FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION TOPS ONE MILLION


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The nation's prison population exceeds
1 million for the first time in history, the Department of Justice
announced today.  At the end of June, 1,012,851 men and women
were incarcerated in state and federal prisons.  State prisons held
919,143 inmates and federal prisons held 93,708 inmates.  California
(124,813) and Texas (100,136) together accounted for more than one
in five inmates in the country.   

The prison population grew by almost 40,000 inmates during the first  
half of 1994, the equivalent of more than 1,500 a week--or three
additional 500-bed prisons.
      
During the last 12 months the prison population expanded by more than  
71,000, the second largest annual increase ever recorded.  This growth  
was slightly greater than the annual growth in the preceding 12 months  
(69,525) and exceeds by 11 percent the average annual growth (63,793)  
during the previous five years, that is from July 1988 to June 1993.
      
The incarceration rate of state and federal prisoners sentenced to
more than a year reached a record 373 prisoners per 100,000 U.S.
residents last June.  The states with the highest incarceration rates
were Texas (545 per 100,000), Louisiana (514), South Carolina (504)
and Oklahoma (501).
      
During the 12 months preceding June 30, 1994, eleven states
recorded prisoner growth rates of 10 percent or more, led by
Connecticut (20 percent), Texas (18 percent), and Tennessee (15
percent).   
      
In the last decade the U.S. prison population doubled on a per
capita basis.  During this 10-year period, the incarceration rate
doubled both for white inmates and black inmates.  At the end of last
year (the latest available data) there were 1,432 black inmates per
100,000 black U.S. residents and 203 white inmates per 100,000 white
residents.

During the first six months of 1994, the number of female inmates
grew 6.2 percent, compared to a 3.9 percent increase among male
inmates.

On June 30, 1994, there were 61,872 women in state and federal
prisons--6.1 percent of all prisoners.  The male incarceration rate, 719
per 100,000 male residents, was more than 16 times higher than the
female incarceration rate--43 per 100,000 female residents.    

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects state and federal
prisoner data twice a year--on June 30 and December 31. These counts
are designed to provide regular updates to the public on the number
of people confined by state and federal authority.  The data have been
published since 1926.  

The report was prepared by Allen J. Beck and Thomas P.
Bonczar, statisticians in the Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS).  Data from tables and graphs used in many BJS reports can be
obtained in spreadsheet files on 5 1/4 and 3 1/2 inch diskettes by
calling 202-307-0784.
      
To receive a fax copy of the 3 tables with complete state data call
301-216-1827.  Single copies of other BJS bulletins and reports may
be obtained from the BJS Clearinghouse, Box 179, Annapolis
Junction, Maryland 20701-0179.  The telephone number is
1-800-732-3277. Fax orders to 410-792-4358.  For additional
information and statistics on drugs and crime call the BJS Drugs and
Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse on 1-800-666-3332.

After hours contact:  Stu Smith 301-983-9354.

                             (END)
.

ONDCP Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse  

Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 5:15 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday

1-800-666-3332

1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD  20850

The ONDCP Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse specializes in the collection,  
analysis, and distribution of data on drugs and crime.  The  
Clearinghouse responds to needs for current data on:

        *  illegal drugs
        *  drug law violations
        *  drug-related crime
        *  drug-using offenders in the criminal justice system
        *  the impact of drugs on criminal justice administration.

The Clearinghouse serves the needs of:

        *  Federal, State, and local policymakers
        *  criminal justice and public health practitioners
        *  researchers
        *  educators and students
        *  private corporations
        *  the media
        *  the general public.

Services provided include:

        *  information specialists responding to drugs and crime  
           data requests
        *  bibliographic data base, vertical files, library,  
           and reading room
        *  national directory of State drug resources
        *  national reports on drugs and crime data
        *  special reports on current drugs and crime issues
        *  selected bibliographies, fact sheets, and other  
           information products on emerging drugs and crime issues.

The ONDCP Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse is managed by the Bureau of Justice  
Statistics, with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy  
(ONDCP).
.

    
    EDMONTON - Inmates in all federal prisons will have to butt out by
    1998.  The Correctional Services of Canada is instituting a no-smoking
    policy in all its prisons.
    
    Prisons for males - especially maximum-security ones - could prove to
    be the toughest obstacles to the non-smoking plan.  Cigarettes, seen by 
    many as an ingrained part of male prison life, are sometimes used as
    currency.
    
    In 1989, the New Brunswick government killed a smoking ban in its jails
    after angry prisoners damaged the facilities.  The ban, which allowed
    prisoners to smoke only outdoors, lasted just one year.
    
    
    {As Nelson (from `The Simpsons') would say: "HAW haw!"}
    

    Butt out eh?

    
    I think they oughta let the cons have their smokes.

    
    	Hey, if it shortens the cons life it saves us all some cash.
    
    

    
    What's this about smoken' some cons....?????
    
    I'm in favor of that !

    :-)
    Dan

    Ya, it may shorten their life, but imagine the medical bills in the
    last 5 years before they croak.

    	
    give 'em lucky strike unfiltered cigarettes...they'll never make 5
    years. :)
    
    

So should risking cancer from second-hand smoke be part of the "punishment"
for a non-smoking inmate? 

    
    <---------
    You forgot the smiley on that one
    
    HTH
    Dan

Filipinos.  Lightning.  NNTTM.

There's something eerie about a bolt of lightning destroying the electric chair.

                 
    MANILA (Reuter) - 54 Filipinos are on death row waiting to be
    executed, but the prisons chief says he doesn't know how to kill
    them.
    
    Senator Ernesto Herrera said yesterday that the Bureau of Corrections
    Director Vincente Vinarao had written to say he was "at a loss" on how
    to carry out his job because the Pilippines has no electric chair and
    no gas chamber.
    
    A law last year that reinstituted capital punishment specifies electro-
    cution as the method of execution until a gas chamber can be built.
    But a bolt of lightning destroyed the country's only electric chair
    several years ago and the bureau does not have the money needed to
    buy a new one or build the chamber, Vinarao told Herrera, author of the
    death penalty law.
    

    
    Better?
    

    Be interesting to see how the country interprets it.
    
    A very strong catholic base, with thousands going to visit every time
    Jesus (or is it Elvis?) appears in the mold on someone's shower
    curtain.

    
    Maybe they should outsource the job to Singapore.

    They would spank them to death there wouldn't they?

    
    I know a girl who I think would probably enjoy that a great deal....
    
    ;->
    Dan
    

    Can't the Phillipines use lethal injection until they figure something
    else out?
    
    

    Any old garden weasel would do the trick, or a garden claw.

    
    There's always the wood chipper.

    
    > There's always the wood chipper.
    
    Are you from the state of Conn.?
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    >Are you from the state of Conn.?
    
    No, but I remember hearing about the candidate for public office
    promising to bring back Capital Punishment and use the wood chipper
    for the tool of choice.
    
    	Skip

    
    Although it probably has been talked about before, what about
    corporal punishment for many crimes?

    I know the caning did not turn the habits of that infamous kid 
    in Singapore, but a public flogging now and then may reduce crime
    and reduce the costs of incarceration.
    
    I know that I behaved better after a good spanking (or at least
    I got caught less).
    
    	Skip

    
    The Isle of Man is an autonomous part of the UK, having its own
    parliament and making ist own laws.  Unlike the rest of the UK it
    continued to use "birching" as a method of corporal punishment
    long after the practice was abandoned on the mainland.
    
    The offender is stretched over a table and was beaten with thin
    flexible birch rods.  Each stroke was referred to as "cut",
    because it often did.  The punishment was often meted out as an
    alternative to jail for petty offenders.
    
    Studies showed that when comparing similar mainland populations
    with the Manx population, the presence of birching as a "deterrent"
    had no statistical significance.  Petty crime rates were about the
    same.  This supports most other findings that the threat of 
    punishment (no matter how severe) really has any impact on crime rates.
    Some studies indicate that birching was considered a "rite of passage"
    for teenage offenders, and it enhanced their street credibility with
    peers. 
    
    Colin
    

>    The offender is stretched over a table and was beaten with thin
>    flexible birch rods.  Each stroke was referred to as "cut",
>    because it often did.

"How the Manx Cat Lost its Tail" by Rudyard Kipling.

>    The Isle of Man is an autonomous part of the UK

It is not a part of the UK at all, nor of the EC, for that matter.

It is a British Crown Possession (since 1828).

/john

    <-  I stand corrected.  "Part of the British Isles" as a geographical
    description was what I intended to convey.

    
       I have the perfect solution to crime. We make jails that 
    "blow up" and destroy all in the jail. This happens when it is
    too full. So, we set it , say, for 5,000 prisoners. When it reaches
    5,001, then BOOM! The jails gone, the prisoners are gone. Then
    we build a new one in the same spot. It'll get rid of the scum,
    it'll also make room for a new one. Save lots of space and money.
    
    
    rosie

    Don't quit the day job.

    
    Police Captain Richard Pimental of Taunton, Mass., is known to the 
    community as "Captain Good" because of his show on local cable TV,
    `Taunton Crime Watch', in which he rails against various "low-lifes"
    and shows their pictures.  For instance, "Now take a good look at
    Mr. Taylor (holding up a photograph of a man arrested for soliciting
    a prostitute).  For the measly sum of $20, he is going to bring
    disease, maybe even death, home to his family."
    
    He also chooses a "Punk Of The Week", a criminal who attacks an old
    person.  The effect of this show on Taunton's crime rate has been
    dramatic, says `The Independent'.  After increasing annually from 1985
    to 1993, the crime rate dropped 11% in 1994 after Capt. Pimental's
    show began.                         
    

$20?  Sounds like you can get a real bahgain in Taunton.

    .586
    
    Not to mention the rise in employment in the community - building, new
    guards, clean-up crews etc....and one could run lottery on when it was
    to blow up and sell tickets to stands so it could be watched in comfort
    ... and sell TV and book rights.  It's brilliant!

    
    > $20?  Sounds like you can get a real bahgain in Taunton.

    Gerald,  You live in one o' dem rich suburbs or what?  How much is a
    hooker where you're living ?????

    :-)
    Dan

I dunno.  The local auto parts place shut down.

    
    Reprinted without permission from today's Toronto Star
    by John Deverell
    
    
    Despite severe budget pressures, Metro police are still leaping into
    cruisers to chase a rising number of false alarms generated by the
    unregulated private security industry.
    
    "We had 75,985 alarm calls last year, of which only 3,166 were valid,"
    says Sergeant Case Damijonaitis, the force's alarms co-ordinator. 
    "It's not a healthy situation."
    
    The force estimates the cost of responding to a false alarm at $180 - two
    officers and a cruiser for 30 minutes plus the cost of support services.
    By that measure, the taxpayers' tab for false alarms has ballooned to
    more than $12-million a year.
    
    Damijonaitis says the police respond as quickly as possible to alarm
    calls that have been verified by witnesses, on-site cameras, acoustic
    monitors or multiple sensors.  But they may take up to two hours to
    check an alarm call and, if they're really busy, they don't go at all.
    

    
    > But they may take up to two hours to
    > check an alarm call and, if they're really busy, they don't go at all.
    
    Well that's comforting.... :-(
    

    
    $180 for a half hour??????
    
    
    Government at it's best....

    
    .595, Mike
    
    Well, I dunno, Mike.  We're talking about two unionized cops and a
    cruiser plus unionized support staff.  $180 may be too much, but then
    again, what do two plumbers cost for a half-hour?
    
    I'd say a 4.16% accuracy rate (where the alarms are concerned) is
    every bit as much as cause for taxpayer concern, if not more so.
    
    I say charge the homeowner/business $180 for every false alarm
    responded to, and I don't doubt that it will eventually come to that.
    
    jc
    

    
    > We're talking about two unionized cops and a cruiser plus unionized 
    > support staff.          ^^^^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^

    I think we may have identified the root of the cost problem...

>    $180 for a half hour??????

Hey, that's in Canadian dollars.  That's about $1.69 US.

    
    
    RE: .596  Yup, wouldn't want to keep the cops from generating more
    revenoo by writing tickets and all.
    
    Mike

    
    Well, whaddaya think, Mike?  Should the cops be chasing down these
    false alarms (24 out of 25 times, at taxpayers expense) just because
    someone decided to install an alarm system, or should the homeowners
    be responsible for ponying up a user fee everytime they waste tax-
    payers money?
    

    Around here after a certain amount of false alarms the business/people
    are charged a fee. After a few thousand dollars they fix the problem
    pretty fast.

    
    I've never had a false alarm on my home security system.  I would hope
    that if it goes off, the cops get there pretty darn fast 8^/.
    
    For the sake of the intruders who will be eating lead, that is 8^).
    
    

    Go Deb!

    
    I'm guessing that better-quality systems have fewer false alarms.
    

    You're guessing wrong. Most of the false alarms aren't a result of
    equipment malfunction, they are a result of operator error.

    .607
    Regardless...if you start charging them $25.00-$100.00 per false alarm
    they'll learn how to use it rather fast.

    
    BS, they are already paying for the services of the police via there
    taxes.
    
    
    Mike

    re: .603
    
    Deb,
    
    I don't know about Shirley, but in my city, the response to a security
    alarm is 10 minutes on the average.  That's AFTER the monitoring
    company has made the required call to the house to see if it is a false
    alarm.
    
    Security systems are simply security blankets for adults.
    
    Bob

     >Regardless...if you start charging them $25.00-$100.00 per false alarm
     >they'll learn how to use it rather fast.
    
     That's what they do, after the 2nd or 3rd one.

>    BS, they are already paying for the services of the police via there
>    taxes.

Do people with alarm systems that tend to send false alarms pay higher taxes
than those without?

    
    
    Maybe, maybe not.

    
    .612:
    
    Maybe, maybe not.  But they certainly are getting a higher-than-
    average share of police protection by operating a system that tends
    to alarm falsely.  If they pay a higher-than-average share, through
    user fees, then I don't mind.
    
    Another suggestion that has been put forward is that, rather than charge
    for the false alarms, the police should simply blacklist a property after
    four consecutive false alarms.  I don't know whether I'm comfortable
    with that suggestion, as thieves may decide to deliberately trigger
    a system several days in a row until the police finally stop coming.
    
    Certainly, their tax dollars entitle them (that's them *personally*,
    not their machines) to be able to summon help when in need.  I don't 
    think that extends to summoning help when *not* in need, and that's 
    what these systems are doing.
    
    jc         
    

    
    > Do people with alarm systems that tend to send false alarms pay 
    > higher taxes than those without?

    Probably.  Which house would you expect to have a security system, a 5
    room cape (average taxes of say $1500), or a 14 room Victorian (average
    taxes of say $4000) ?

    Dan

My next door neighbor has an alarm.  I don't.  Houses are practically identical.
I suspect incomes aren't all that different either.

    Do these systems in Canada call the police  automatically or call a
    monitoring service, which calls the alarm location before calling the
    police, as is done here in the U.S.?
    
    Bob