Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Bartenders and club owners can be held responsible for serving someone 
    who is underage or intoxicated.
    
    "Repeat" to me means that they will do it again.  If a judge or parole
    board looks at a repeat offender and turns them loose, they should
    be held responsible if that person commits another crime.
    
     

    No, I don't believe that judges or members of the parole board 
    should be held accountable for the actions of those they release.

    They should be held accountable for THEIR actions.  That is, they are
    responsible for carrying out their assigned duties with due care.
    There are some outrageous cases where people in authority clearly 
    didn't.  One case from 60-minutes years ago was a psychotic person 
    who killed a your boy shortly after being released from a psycho
    ward were he was being held for evaluation.  The doctors who approved 
    his release were so afraid of him they would not conduct the interview 
    in the same room as the patient.  Instead, he was locked in his cell,
    and they talked to him through the bars.

    How can anyone be responsible for the actions of others?  Even parents
    have limited liability for the actions of their children, but at least
    they are responsible for looking after their kids.  Once a judge or a
    parole board releases someone, that person is free to move about with
    very limited supervision or restrictions.

>The doctors who approved 
>    his release were so afraid of him they would not conduct the interview 
>    in the same room as the patient.

This sounds incredible.  What on earth were the doctors' reasons or excuses
for letting him out?

    .1
    
    Your absolutely right! 
    
    If bartenders can be sued for letting a drunk go, then why shouldn't
    the judge and parole board be sued? They should be held accountable
    period. If you disagree, imagine your kids,wife,husband, and/or loved
    ones that are the ones that get killed,crippled,maimed or brutally
    raped. Do you still think that those that let that person go shouldn't
    be held at least partially responsible? If you do, your the nut who
    should be locked up. 
    
    

    
    I think the system is getting careless.  There is such an squak about
    jails being overcrowded that offenders are being released carelessly.
    
    Isn't there a country sheriff right now who is about to be held in
    contempt because he refuses to release prisoners due to the jail being
    overcrowded?  
    
    He is absolutely correct in his actions, this is not a reason to release 
    criminals into society.
    

    
    No, no, no.  Let 'em all out.  It's the only humane thing to do...
    
    Oh by the way, just tell me, and maybe Mike W., and probably a couple
    of the other people in here where you're gonna be lettin' them out of
    and when.  Would ya do that for me, what a sport you are......

    Oh I guarantee that your violent crime rate is gonna go down, and I will
    personally attest that these individuals will NEVER commit another
    crime...... TRUST ME......BWAHAHAHAAHAHAH

    :-)
    Dan

    
    	Hmmm...an open season on freshly released prisoners? not bad. Think
    an AR-15 is too much for criminals?
    
    
    

    There is a shierff who is about to go to jail in contempt of court for
    with holding early release prisioners. The problem is over crouding,
    and the court system told the shierff to release em, and the shierff
    says there isn't any qualifiable canidates to put on the street or put
    on a gizmo to watch em stay around home.... And so, the court system,
    as many might not know, needs some serious revamping. I feel that all
    should be held accountable as we are held for our jobs and duities. We
    are not above the law, and why should judges, and others who release
    these people do such.

    overcrowding
    
    
    NNTTM.  (sorry, I get so few chances at being a pedant  8^) )

    I think the big problem with over crowding is the willingness of the
    general poulation to allow prisons in their back yards(mine
    included). Politics also plays a big role in it as well as in how
    much money do we want to spend on new prisons before schools are 
    repaired, highways are fixed etc, etc. I think the sheriff is correct
    not letting them go...especially the harded criminals.

    If they would release the drug USERS who committed no other crime other
    than being caught with illegal personal stashes, that would elleviate
    some of the overcrowding problems.  They should release them with one
    restriction, that they go to a drug rehab program.
    
    Another way to reduce overcrowding is to fry rapists, murderers, and
    carreer criminals who's MOs always includes violence of some form
    (armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).
    
    
    -steve

    I agree with Steve up to the point of requiring treatment.  See the
    War on some drugs note for the pro-legailization/decriminalization
    arguments etc. etc. etc. 

                      <<< Note 487.3 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

>>The doctors who approved 
>>    his release were so afraid of him they would not conduct the interview 
>>    in the same room as the patient.
>
>This sounds incredible.  What on earth were the doctors' reasons or excuses
>for letting him out?

None that I could find.  It was fun watching the Doctor in charge squirm
for the 60-Minutes cameras, but I'd love to revoke his license and sentence 
him to 20 years -- with the violent offender.

                     <<< Note 487.4 by CSLALL::SECURITY >>>
                                    -< daz >-

>   If bartenders can be sued for letting a drunk go, then why shouldn't
>   the judge and parole board be sued?

Because bartenders have a visibly dangerous situation developing right in
front of them.  A judge or parole board can only guess about what the 
person may do in the future.

          <<< Note 487.8 by MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>

>   There is a shierff who is about to go to jail in contempt of court for
>   with holding early release prisioners. The problem is over crouding,
>   and the court system told the shierff to release em, and the shierff
>   says there isn't any qualifiable canidates to put on the street or put
>   on a gizmo to watch em stay around home.

If the sheriff goes to jail because he didn't release enough prisoners,
I wonder if the sheriff will be eligible for early release.  ;^)

I think it's far from clear how a bartender is gonna know how bad off the
patron is.

I mean, this side of passing out, puking, or provoking a fight, how's the
bartender to know? We all know that the ability to maintain, if not
perform, under the influence is very dependent on the individual.

If'n I were a bartender, I'd make 'em sign consent forms for each drink.

TTom

RE: .10

    I agree.  Building or expanding prisons is extremely difficult.
    Most communities don't want them.


RE: .11

    I agree with your idea about expanding the death penalty.  I don't 
    think that we should be spending money housing, say, a three-time
    rapist.  Such a person is a bad risk if released.

    How about, "three stikes and your dead" for violent offenders?  One of
    the reasons frequently given by opponents of the death penalty is that
    the court system makes mistakes, and they produce lists of people who
    have been executed for crimes they did not commit.  I have not heard
    of any cases where a person was wrongly convicted of three separate 
    violent crimes.  A person who is about to be executed may stand up and
    say that he or she did not commit the last crime, but the State can 
    counter by saying, "Yes, but what about the other two?  You should be
    executed for either of them."

             <<< Note 487.16 by HBAHBA::HAAS "improbable cause" >>>
                               -< hard to tell >-

RE: How does a bartender know?

    I read somewhere that bars that want to avoid lawsuits hold classes
    (presumably taught by consultants) on what to look for.  I've seen
    one bar that had a little checklist behind the bar as a reminder.

    
    re. -.17
    
    How about 1 strike and your dead??   Capital punishment for violent
    offenders should be a must.
    
    

Capital punishment for barroom brawlers?

Nah,

fer the freakin bartender who served up until they brawled or otherwise
got croudy, whichever comes firsted.

TTom

Three-armed robbers are quite rare.

    re: .22
    
    Not exactly right.  Three separate convictions of armed robbery, yes. 
    This does not mean going out one day and holding up three
    establishments.  It means going to jail for armed robbery for X years,
    getting out;  going to jail again for X years for armed robbery,
    getting out; then getting caught again and getting fried.
    
    I think ample precedent has been set that shows said individual is not
    willing to reform, and that jail time is not enough to curb his/her
    ways.
    
    
    -steve

    
    re: .22
    
    I think the caveat is that the last one has to occur during a bar-rrom
    brawl...
    

I don't think it should matter what type of tie the guy has on.

TTom

I say we fry their parents, too.  After all,
they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them.

And most likely they're bad people too.

    >re: .22
    >    Not exactly right.
    
    I think it *would* be difficult to find a robber with three arms.
    
    ...Tom

Oh, and their pets, too.

    
    Unless I'm very much mistaken, more criminals are killed by armed
    citizens than are killed any other way, excluding old age of course...

    Am I right Amos ?

    Dan

    Cure for prison overcrowding:
    
    Anytime an overcrowding situation is identified, line up all prisoners
    in alphabetic order. Roll a set of dice, number 6 comes up execute
    every 6th prisoner regardless of crime. If prisoners still think it's
    too crowded repeat process until noone complains about overcrowding.
    
    Side benefit is that potential criminals may think twice about
    committing any crime and running a risk of playing that lottery.
    
    Re: Accountability. I believe  Judges, psych's and parole board members 
    have an implied responsibility to determine that it is safe to release some
    one. Certainly a psychiatrist and a parole board are reviewing a case
    to insure that the patient is cured of the mental abberation that led
    him to commit some crime or that the potential parolee has been
    rehabilitatred and is ready to return to society as a law-abiding
    citizen.
    
    If they are not accountable for their decision and someone is killed as a 
    result what incentive do they have to make the right decision. However, if 
    I make a decision to run a red light and kill a pedistrian I am held 
    accountable for making a bad decision (in addition to breaking a law). 
    At the very least these individuals should be sued for mal-practice if 
    their decision leads to another crime being committed. Might incent them to
    be absolutely sure that they are making the right decision. If this
    leads them to release less prisoners and causes prison overcrowding see
    my solution above.
    
    JLB 
    
                                                          

    I think that the US should do prisoner swaps with other countries,
    like Turkey, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and maybe China; After a few
    years of confiment in some of these wonderful establishments...
    I don't feel there would be a whole lot of repeat offenders, if the
    said perp is alive after their "stint".
    
    Re. -?; AR-15...Not enough, go with something w/ a little more
    uumph...Say...hummmm 7MM Rem. Mag.; 300 Mag.. Something that
    says GOTCHA, and ya ain't gonna survive.
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    
    
    	
>    Re. -?; AR-15...Not enough, go with something w/ a little more
>    uumph...Say...hummmm 7MM Rem. Mag.; 300 Mag.. Something that
>    says GOTCHA, and ya ain't gonna survive.
    
    	I've had my eye on this .50BMG Robar......;*)
    
    
    jim

Not sure if this should be here or in Capital Punishment -

This evening on 60 Minutes they had a story about a fellow named
John Cockrum who's been on death row in Texas for over eight years
after murdering a convenience store clerk. John had also shotgunned
his own father, an alcoholic and domestically abusive local cop,
back in 1976. His father died of kidney failure a few weeks after
this incident.

Since John has been imprisoned for the more recent murder, he claims
to have found faith, has acknowledged the wrongness of his acts, and
has personally requested that his death sentence be carried out.

A liberal law center in Texas who had been working John's appeals
for some time, countered his request to Texas authorities by claiming
that John is incompetent to make this request. John countered by
asking the Courts to discharge his lawyers and to cease hearing any
requests on their behalf to maintain his life, as he preferred to
have his just sentence carried out.

The liberal judge handling the matter requested an independent
psychological evaluation of John to determine whether or not he was
in fact competent to make this decision for himself. The psychologist
assigned to the evaluation expressed to 60 Minutes that he found John
totally rational and competent. The 60 Minutes interview of John likewise
appeared to indicate John to be competent.

The judge has decided to ignore the evaluation he requested, and side
with the Texas Law Center, who previously defended John's appeals and
who John requested to have discharged, in having John's sentence
delayed indefinitely.

60 Minutes states that there is evidence that the Texas Law Center,
coincidentally or otherwise, is actively involved in efforts to have
capital punishment eliminated in the USA.

Sounds like justice for none to me.

The State of Texas, in the person of a jury of his peers and a judge,
sentenced him to death. He personally agrees with the sentence and
requests that it be carried out. A bunch of two-bit scumsucking lawyers
trying to make a name for themselves decide to whine about it and some
whacko liberal judge (who looked like he missed his last half-dozen
Geritol doses) buys the whole thing.

Where's the justice?

    
    <--- Jack, I saw that one too.  While I don't necessarily support the
         death penalty, I felt that Cockrum's lawyers were WAY out of line.
    
         Who are THEY to play politics with his case against his wishes?
         If he accepts his punishment, then carry it out and quit playing
         games.
    

    So now your own lawyers don't work FOR you?  Great.  
    
    If the convicted does not ask for an appeal, then his lawyers should
    move onto the next case.  
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    See, judges are lawyers too, they have an interest to keep the
    profession going so as their kids can follow in mommy's or daddy's
    footsteps.
    
    

    Ban lawyers!

	I was watching, "Back to the Future, Part II" yesterday, and they had a
trial that they read about in the paper that only took 2 hours to get a
verdict. Seems that the justice system had speeded up due to the outlawing of
lawyers! :-)  Good thing Ben Matlock would be rotted by then...... :-)

How about - If you get out early or a suspended sentence due to the
manipulations of a lawyer, and you commit another crime, your
lawer gets to go to jail with you.

Also, Maybe we should bring back corporal punishment.  A quick 10 lashes
IN PUBLIC may make the offender and potential offender think twice.

	Skip

    .41
    
    > Also, Maybe we should bring back corporal punishment.  A quick 10 lashes
    > IN PUBLIC may make the offender and potential offender think twice.
    
    In the 1850s, Delaware was the last of the United States to do away
    with public flogging for misdemeanors.  Delaware's misdemeanor rate,
    thitherto roughly 1/7 of the national norm, immediately rose sevenfold
    to fall into line with the rest of the country.
    
    Is flogging cruel?  Probably.  Inhumane?  Maybe.  Effective?  You bet
    it is.

    
    <--
    
    Singapore comes to mind here.

    This is a state by state thing isn't it?   
    
    Each state decides how they want to run it...   I bet that if you
    compare 1 state that has a strict interpretation and execution
    of death sentences to another state that plays all the stupid "make
    lawers rich games" the costs for the strict state would be far less
    than the state that plays all the games.   Makes cents? 
    
    This asside - what do we want - to lawers rich(er) and drain the 
    overall system or cut to the chase and save money?
    
    The system gets corrupted with the appeal process (which I believe is
    necessary) although to a point.   Reform Appeals process...
    
    

    > Reform Appeals process...
    
    Isn't there new Fed legislation that would limit appeals to ONE?  That
    sounds like a good approach.  As it is now, a perp can live out a long
    and happy life in a country-club prison while spending the system dry,
    with appeal after appeal.

    
    If I recall correctly, part of the new anti-terrorist bill limits
    *federal* appeals to one, in capital cases.  I don't know how many
    state-level appeals a convict would have at his disposal.
    

    .46
    
    I *did* say "Fed legislation," ya know.  :-)

re: .45

FYI, Death Row in Huntsville, Texas isn't a CC prison.

Bob

    .48
    
    Compared with being dead, EVERY Death Row is a CC prison.

Mr. Binder, you speak with the air of authority.  Have you ever been dead?

Have you ever tried?

    To find the comfort from inside you....

    Olivia Newton John?
    
    blah

    Yeah...you piss and moan about Olivia Newton John but you sure seem to
    know the song don't you>
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 487.55 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Yeah...you piss and moan about Olivia Newton John but you sure seem to
| know the song don't you>

	Jack, the > symbol does not represent the question mark. The ? symbol,
does. nnttm

    
    well she still looks good for her advancing age. She is in her mid 40's
    and is still a looker.

    My understanding was that she has cancer.  Is this true>
    
    -Jack

 let's not get physical

I think she had a mastectomy a few years ago.

    I can't help it.  Every moment that I live without ya...I can't
    survive.

> She is in her mid 40's and is still a looker.

47 this year, to be exact. We share a birth year.

    <--- Same as my big brother. I only wish he was as lucky as you.

All of us old codgers are lucky.

    
    especially, you Jack Delbalso!!!

    
    > well she still looks good for her advancing age. She is in her mid 40's
    > and is still a looker.
    
    mid 40's,.... advancing age !   I'd be careful if'n I was yous Jack! 
    There's lotsa women who look mighty fine up to and into their 50's
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

    
    well Dan, be that it may, I'm Mark, Jack is the _lucky_ one. hth

    
    Whoooops.... SORRY :-(
    
    I thought Jack Martin had said that.... my mistake....
    
    Dan

    .64
    
    Speak for yourself, John.

    Yes, easy for him to say he's lucky because he IS so lucky.

    
    re: .69
    So Dick,
    
    Does that mean you're an unlucky old codger???
    
    :)
    

    .71
    
    I never said I was unlucky.

    
    Olivia Newton John had breast cancer.  She claims to be feeling well
    and fit.
    
    Mary
    

    
    .72
    
    just old then???