Democrats, Pacifism, and Felons

[Borillar]

Democrats are more worried about making prisoners comfortable or releasing them early than they are about punishing and reforming them. The criminals will be released even though they are just as dangerous, if not more so, than when they were convicted.

They treat terrorism the same. They were more aghast at the thought of enhanced interrogation than countless acts of mass murder by terrorist organizations. While the worst attack on our soil has been reduced to a national day of volunteering, enhanced interrogation remains a huge issue with the left. Forgiving those ruthless murderers fits in with their pacifist nature. Coming down hard on terrorists and other murderers is what they see as unforgivable. While they use the death of innocents as an excuse to disarm the public, don't expect them to shed a tear for the countless victims who will die because they are unable to protect themselves.

They pretend that no one really wants to harm others and all that is needed is some kindness to encourage killers to change their evil ways. Fighting against evil isn't an option for the left. Pacifying those who are evil temporarily makes things seem okay and worthless "feel good" legislation has always been preferrable to those who are unwilling or unable to admit that there are evil people and that it's okay to literally fight against them.

I would like to see our prison system operate more as rehabilitation centers instead of training grounds for criminals and gangs. As it is, they are thrown in there to fend for themselves and it would seem the guards aren't able to protect prisoners from other prisoners.

We have to acknowledge that there are psychopaths in this world who were born without a conscience and will never change. They kill people with less emotion than most do killing spiders. Members of the drug cartels, gangs and terrorists are a lot alike. Killing people is all in a day's work and they don't lose a moment of sleep. The left tends to sympathize with these people rather than fear or despise them. Funny how they can be so benevolent to cold-blooded killers, yet hold the average citizen in such contempt.

So, how do you propose to "rehabilitate" the prisoners? By torturing them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, I feel for you, I really do. And because I do I have included this little video.

Agent Smith - Why do you persist? - YouTube

OK, that might have been just a little creepy.

Far more constructive would be an attempt to respond to the OP.....

...on second thought, I've seen your work: it would hardly be constructive.


Stick with youtube vids.

I just responded to every post you have every made. What can be better than that. (Sorry, don't have a youtube video for this one.)

A modification....

...you've responded to the best of your ability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What you recall is irrelevant; I actually I searched the thread looking for anywhere it might have been quantified or validated, and there was none. It was way more than one appearance, although I didn't keep count. I don't have a monopoly on the "search page" function.



So -- two ad hominems rare, and an argumentum ad populum dressed. You want fries with that?





Ah, moving the goalposts for dessert. Fine choice. We declare an absolute (e.g. "pacifisim is immoral") and then want to start retrofitting exceptions. Hilarious.




-- Aaaaand right back to the circular reasoning we started with. This is where I came in.



Is that what you call it? I thought it was a Marcel Marceau impression.

Hey, I'm just pointing out your OP-eror has no clothes. Seems to me a valid argument should start with a valid premise.
But maybe I assume too much, i.e. that a valid argument was even what you were going for here. My mistake. Carry on.

You try far too hard to be clever....

Face it....you're not equipped to be so.

For a guy who's "not equipped" it didn't take much to be effective, did it?
I accept your concession.

Now, don't be petulant.

Face the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's interesting that anyone could turn the idea of someone being hostile towards war into a case for disparagement and ridicule of that someone.

Although I hate to encourage you, I must note that, since you have attempted to keep up with me, respond to my posts....there is a marked improvement in your work.
It is almost adult.



What have I done???

Sitting at the side of kid's table that allows you to overhear what the adults are talking about seems to have helped you some.

Seems I was wrong about any improvement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The big lies that rightwingers tell on USMB are usually easy to deal with. Some posters however, like to make the task a bit more challenging by shotgunning the board with a volley of little lies, buried in the clutter and underbrush of their habitually interminable posts,

like the one above.

The claim is that Judge Sotomayor wants to give felons the vote. The claim is made as if that is Judge Sotomayor's personal opinion and preference, and it is 'supported' by a link, which gives the lie an air of credibility...

...unless of course one actually reads the link, and then follows up by tracking down the original source material from which the lie is constructed.

Let's look at what Sotomayor actually SAID in her dissent:

I join in Judge Parker's dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point. I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences — and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong — may give the impression that this case is in some way complex. It is not.

It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all "voting 368*368 qualification." And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 322, includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

I respectfully dissent.

...the italics are mine. Is she objecting to felons being denied the vote? Anywhere? Or, is it that she is objecting to what is commonly called 'legislating from the bench'?

You tell us.

hayden v. pataki - Google Scholar

Let's stop the little lies too.

That is open to question.

"Felon voting has not been regulated federally although some argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be applied to felon disenfranchisement and that Congress has the authority to legislate felon voting in federal elections."
State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org

The original 'question' here is whether or not it is honest to proclaim Judge Sotomayor to be in favor of letting felons vote based on her dissent in this case.

My counter-argument was that her dissent contained nothing material to that issue; her dissent was based entirely on separate issues unconnected to whatever her personal view is.

Currently jailed felons are only allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can vote including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of votes. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would vote democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights.
Democrats point to the laws in other countries like Canada, Denmark and Israel that allow most convicted criminals even those who are serving prison sentences the right to vote. Democrats also are saying the law banning prisoners the right to vote disenfranchises African Americans the most who make up 40 percent of felons in the United States. In a Huffington Post interview, The Sentencing Project calls the law into question and says, “This is a fundamental question of democracy”.
Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this election, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to vote in all local and national elections.
Why Democrats Want Jailed Felons To Vote | Medford Oregon City Search


So....using that deep insight that you always use in constructing your posts. (cough! cough!) how do you suppose the good Justice would vote if the question came before her?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.
a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.
Dennis Prager

c. Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil.


2. The domestic version of pacifism is practiced regularly by Liberal elected officials. The was Massachusetts Democrat Governor Dukakis, who " believed that it was “rehabilitative” for prisoners to be allowed to roam the streets unsupervised in what was known as the Prison Furlough Program.... convicted murderer Willie Horton was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back....Horton punched, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes – and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.
When Barnes’ fiancée Angela returned that evening, Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice." Dukakis & Willie*Horton ? The Forerunner


3. Then there was Illinois Democrat Governor Pat Quinn..."To have a consistent, perfect death penalty system ... that's impossible in our state," Quinn told reporters. "I think it's the right and just thing to abolish the death penalty and punish those who commit heinous crimes -- evil people -- with life in prison without parole and no chance of release."
Illinois governor signs death penalty ban | Reuters


4. And California Democrat Pat Brown:
"Taking a page from Dukakis’ book, California Governor Jerry Brown is now making a habit of paroling convicted murders. According to Brown, he expunged the records of 128 felons last year, and also gave the greenlight to parole for 377 convicted murders, a full 81 percent of all those the parole board recommended go free. Virtually all other California governors have rejected such pleas from the parole board."
CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers



And, in a related story....

5. "Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons
Elmira, N.Y. - Vice President Joe Biden says he doesn't think you need assault style rifles in order to protect your home from an intruder.
He made those comments on Tuesday night at a facebook town hall meeting.

Biden was asked by a woman named Kate who wondered if the federal government bans certain military-style weapons and high capacity magazines, would that make law abiding citizens a target for criminals. This was his response.

Biden said, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun. Have the shells for the .12 gauge shotgun and I promise you, as I told my wife, if ever there is a problem, just walk on the balcony here or walk out and put that double barrel shotgun in the air and fire two blasts outside the house. You don't need an AR 15.”
Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons - WETM 18 Online



And, by an inexplicable coincidence, Vice-President Biden happens to belong to the same political party as Michael Dukakis, Pat Quinn and Pat Brown.




How 'bout this...

"Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court."
Democrats want to let convicted felons and felons in prison vote! Do you think this should be allowed or not?


And....
"Currently jailed felons are only allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can vote including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of votes. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would vote democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights."

Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this election, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to vote in all local and national elections.
Why Democrats Want Jailed Felons To Vote | Medford Oregon City Search



What's the common denominator.....?

Then why was it:
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Lyndon B. Johnson
Democrats all that led American into war?

I would more believe that Democrats are elitiist hypocrites who really believe their bodily waste does not stink.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.
a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.
Dennis Prager

c. Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil.


2. The domestic version of pacifism is practiced regularly by Liberal elected officials. The was Massachusetts Democrat Governor Dukakis, who " believed that it was “rehabilitative” for prisoners to be allowed to roam the streets unsupervised in what was known as the Prison Furlough Program.... convicted murderer Willie Horton was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back....Horton punched, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes – and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.
When Barnes’ fiancée Angela returned that evening, Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice." Dukakis & Willie*Horton ? The Forerunner


3. Then there was Illinois Democrat Governor Pat Quinn..."To have a consistent, perfect death penalty system ... that's impossible in our state," Quinn told reporters. "I think it's the right and just thing to abolish the death penalty and punish those who commit heinous crimes -- evil people -- with life in prison without parole and no chance of release."
Illinois governor signs death penalty ban | Reuters


4. And California Democrat Pat Brown:
"Taking a page from Dukakis’ book, California Governor Jerry Brown is now making a habit of paroling convicted murders. According to Brown, he expunged the records of 128 felons last year, and also gave the greenlight to parole for 377 convicted murders, a full 81 percent of all those the parole board recommended go free. Virtually all other California governors have rejected such pleas from the parole board."
CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers



And, in a related story....

5. "Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons
Elmira, N.Y. - Vice President Joe Biden says he doesn't think you need assault style rifles in order to protect your home from an intruder.
He made those comments on Tuesday night at a facebook town hall meeting.

Biden was asked by a woman named Kate who wondered if the federal government bans certain military-style weapons and high capacity magazines, would that make law abiding citizens a target for criminals. This was his response.

Biden said, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun. Have the shells for the .12 gauge shotgun and I promise you, as I told my wife, if ever there is a problem, just walk on the balcony here or walk out and put that double barrel shotgun in the air and fire two blasts outside the house. You don't need an AR 15.”
Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons - WETM 18 Online



And, by an inexplicable coincidence, Vice-President Biden happens to belong to the same political party as Michael Dukakis, Pat Quinn and Pat Brown.




How 'bout this...

"Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court."
Democrats want to let convicted felons and felons in prison vote! Do you think this should be allowed or not?


And....
"Currently jailed felons are only allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can vote including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of votes. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would vote democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights."

Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this election, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to vote in all local and national elections.
Why Democrats Want Jailed Felons To Vote | Medford Oregon City Search



What's the common denominator.....?

Then why was it:
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Lyndon B. Johnson
Democrats all that led American into war?

I would more believe that Democrats are elitiist hypocrites who really believe their bodily waste does not stink.

1.The OP begins "Following WWI..."

That removes Wilson.


FDR's nation was attacked.

Nor did Truman lead us into war.

LBJ increased a war effort begin earlier.


2. I responded to your query....but, be advised....the OP does not state that all Liberals/Democrats behave a pacifists.

The essence is how the Liberal/Democrats on the homefront make it easier for criminals and more difficult for innocent citizens.

3. None of the apologists for Liberal Democrats has dared to champion Democrat Liberal Governor Pat Brown's release of 377 convicted killers.


Would you care to make the argument?

 

[JoeB131]

[



"the fact is, the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent. If it was, Texas would have the lowest crime rate in the country intead (sic) of one of the highest"


Of course logic isn't your strong suit: Texas could simply have more murderers to contend with.


It's telling that you were afraid to include the conclusion of the study I posted.

Honestly, if it's like m ost of the "studies" you post, it's from Cloud Coukoo Land.

Fact is- the Death Penatly is a barbarism, shouldn't even still exist, and there's no good reason for it. Other than satisfying the blood lust of certain people. It has no deterent value, it's not cost effective, and oh yeah, you might accidently kill the wrong people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[



"the fact is, the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent. If it was, Texas would have the lowest crime rate in the country intead (sic) of one of the highest"


Of course logic isn't your strong suit: Texas could simply have more murderers to contend with.


It's telling that you were afraid to include the conclusion of the study I posted.

Honestly, if it's like m ost of the "studies" you post, it's from Cloud Coukoo Land.

Fact is- the Death Penatly is a barbarism, shouldn't even still exist, and there's no good reason for it. Other than satisfying the blood lust of certain people. It has no deterent value, it's not cost effective, and oh yeah, you might accidently kill the wrong people.

Well, let's explore your concept of "Cloud Coukoo (sic) Land," and I believe it will be evident who is actually...not cuckoo.....but who is disingenuous: you.

The study in question:


"Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year, say Roy D. Adler, a professor of marketing and Michael Summers, a professor of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University.

Their study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the United States for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase."
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WORKS


Oh....and it was published in the Wall Street Journal.
Crazy, huh?


I may have to change your name from Erroneous Joe....to Disingenuous Joe......
Has s nice ring to it, doesn't it?


A civilized society must punish criminals appropriately.
That means the death penalty.

 

[Agit8r]

"the education to pacifism must of necessity have its effect right through life until it reaches the humblest individual lives. The conception of pacifism is logical if I once admit a general equality amongst peoples and human beings. For in that case what sense is there in conflict? The conception of pacifism translated into practice and applied to all spheres must gradually lead to the destruction of the competitive instinct, to the destruction of the ambition for outstanding achievement."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

 

[Bfgrn]

[



"the fact is, the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent. If it was, Texas would have the lowest crime rate in the country intead (sic) of one of the highest"


Of course logic isn't your strong suit: Texas could simply have more murderers to contend with.


It's telling that you were afraid to include the conclusion of the study I posted.

Honestly, if it's like m ost of the "studies" you post, it's from Cloud Coukoo Land.

Fact is- the Death Penatly is a barbarism, shouldn't even still exist, and there's no good reason for it. Other than satisfying the blood lust of certain people. It has no deterent value, it's not cost effective, and oh yeah, you might accidently kill the wrong people.

Well, let's explore your concept of "Cloud Coukoo (sic) Land," and I believe it will be evident who is actually...not cuckoo.....but who is disingenuous: you.

The study in question:


"Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year, say Roy D. Adler, a professor of marketing and Michael Summers, a professor of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University.

Their study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the United States for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase."
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WORKS


Oh....and it was published in the Wall Street Journal.
Crazy, huh?


I may have to change your name from Erroneous Joe....to Disingenuous Joe......
Has s nice ring to it, doesn't it?


A civilized society must punish criminals appropriately.
That means the death penalty.

0091-4169/09/9902-0489
THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW &CRIMINOLOGY .........................Vol. 99, No. 2
Copyright © 2009 by Northwestern University, School of Law ..........Printed in U.S.A

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS*

MICHAEL L. RADELET** & TRACI L. LACOCK***

For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has
been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists. Why? Because the instincts
that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of
equilibrium.
—Albert Camus


Excerpt:

Roy Adler and Michael Summers published an astonishingly simple study on the subject, which was publicized in the Wall Street Journal. The authors examined U.S. homicides and executions from 1979 to 2004, and observed that the former decreased while the latter increased. Their conclusion—that each execution prevented some seventy-four murders in
the following year—was premised solely on the basis of that observation. The authors did not use additional control variables, or consider factors such as patterns of drug use, possession of handguns, alternative punishments, or arrest rates for homicides. No attempt was made to see if more murders are prevented in states that execute prisoners, or in states that execute the most, compared to states where the death penalty is not used.

The apparent lack of consensus among the studies discussed above complicates an important social policy issue, namely how to reduce criminal violence. However, Michael Radelet’s and Ronald Akers’s 1996 survey of leading criminologists reveals that there is a consensus among scholars that the death penalty has little, if any, impact on criminal violence.

In 1996, Radelet and Akers obtained completed questionnaires from sixtyseven of seventy-one former presidents of the three leading professional criminology associations in the United States: American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association. They concluded that “there is a wide consensus among America’s top criminologists that scholarly research has demonstrated that the death penalty does, and can do, little to reduce rates of criminal violence.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Well, let's explore your concept of "Cloud Coukoo (sic) Land," and I believe it will be evident who is actually...not cuckoo.....but who is disingenuous: you.

The study in question:


.

Is bullshit.

And the Wall Street Journal has become Bullshit since Rupurt Murdoch took it over, so I don't put any faith in what they say..

Fact is, the Death Penalty is not a deterrent. And if you applied a bit of logic, you'd know why it isn't.

Most murders are either committed by people who think they are so clever they won't get caught, or are committed by people who are either insane or in a moment of emotional rage where they just aren't thinking. Therefore, the idea that a really bad punishment for it will deter them is laughable.

NCADP - The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Studies in Oklahoma and California failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, found a significant increase in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated. (William Bailey, “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty,” Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, “Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California.” Homicide Studies, 1999)

The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)

A Texas study determined in 1999 that there was no relation between the number of executions and murder rates in general. (Victoria Brewer, Robert Wrinkle, John Sorenson and James Marquart)

A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, “Absence of Executions,” New York Times, September 22, 2000)

The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)

Again, I find it amazing that "conservatives" who don't trust the government to teach children about evolution or manage health care think government is perfectly suited to decide who needs to die for a crime.

 

[JoeB131]

Currently jailed felons are only allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can vote including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of votes. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would vote democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights.
Democrats point to the laws in other countries like Canada, Denmark and Israel that allow most convicted criminals even those who are serving prison sentences the right to vote. Democrats also are saying the law banning prisoners the right to vote disenfranchises African Americans the most who make up 40 percent of felons in the United States. In a Huffington Post interview, The Sentencing Project calls the law into question and says, “This is a fundamental question of democracy”.
Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this election, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to vote in all local and national elections.
Why Democrats Want Jailed Felons To Vote | Medford Oregon City Search


So....using that deep insight that you always use in constructing your posts. (cough! cough!) how do you suppose the good Justice would vote if the question came before her?

Hopefully, to get rid of at least the law that keeps people from voting after they've served their time.

Now, putting aside the fact we throw too many people in prison to start with in this country, (Seriously, do we REALLY need to lock up 2 million people when Communist China only locks up a million?)

If you've served your time in prison, you've paid for whatever you've done. Keeping in mind that most prisoners are in for drug and property offenses, its hardly like the victims are being harmed by the ones who get out getting their right to vote back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Honestly, if it's like m ost of the "studies" you post, it's from Cloud Coukoo Land.

Fact is- the Death Penatly is a barbarism, shouldn't even still exist, and there's no good reason for it. Other than satisfying the blood lust of certain people. It has no deterent value, it's not cost effective, and oh yeah, you might accidently kill the wrong people.

Well, let's explore your concept of "Cloud Coukoo (sic) Land," and I believe it will be evident who is actually...not cuckoo.....but who is disingenuous: you.

The study in question:


"Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year, say Roy D. Adler, a professor of marketing and Michael Summers, a professor of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University.

Their study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the United States for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase."
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WORKS


Oh....and it was published in the Wall Street Journal.
Crazy, huh?


I may have to change your name from Erroneous Joe....to Disingenuous Joe......
Has s nice ring to it, doesn't it?


A civilized society must punish criminals appropriately.
That means the death penalty.

0091-4169/09/9902-0489
THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW &CRIMINOLOGY .........................Vol. 99, No. 2
Copyright © 2009 by Northwestern University, School of Law ..........Printed in U.S.A

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS*

MICHAEL L. RADELET** & TRACI L. LACOCK***

For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has
been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists. Why? Because the instincts
that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of
equilibrium.
—Albert Camus


Excerpt:

Roy Adler and Michael Summers published an astonishingly simple study on the subject, which was publicized in the Wall Street Journal. The authors examined U.S. homicides and executions from 1979 to 2004, and observed that the former decreased while the latter increased. Their conclusion—that each execution prevented some seventy-four murders in
the following year—was premised solely on the basis of that observation. The authors did not use additional control variables, or consider factors such as patterns of drug use, possession of handguns, alternative punishments, or arrest rates for homicides. No attempt was made to see if more murders are prevented in states that execute prisoners, or in states that execute the most, compared to states where the death penalty is not used.

The apparent lack of consensus among the studies discussed above complicates an important social policy issue, namely how to reduce criminal violence. However, Michael Radelet’s and Ronald Akers’s 1996 survey of leading criminologists reveals that there is a consensus among scholars that the death penalty has little, if any, impact on criminal violence.

In 1996, Radelet and Akers obtained completed questionnaires from sixtyseven of seventy-one former presidents of the three leading professional criminology associations in the United States: American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association. They concluded that “there is a wide consensus among America’s top criminologists that scholarly research has demonstrated that the death penalty does, and can do, little to reduce rates of criminal violence.

factors such as patterns of drug use, possession of handguns, alternative punishments, or arrest rates for homicides. No attempt was made to see if more murders are prevented in states that execute prisoners, or in states that execute the most, compared to states where the death penalty is not used.

"factors such as patterns of drug use, possession of handguns, alternative punishments, or arrest rates for homicides. No attempt was made to see if more murders are prevented in states that execute prisoners, or in states that execute the most, compared to states where the death penalty is not used."


First.....none of the above denies the truth of the fact that criminals are bright enough to not want to put to death.


And the evidence you present against the study is .....what.....the opinions of some guys, some "leading criminologists," who oppose the death penalty???

Really???



No society is civilized unless it protects the innocent by dealing appropriately with the guilty.

That means the death penalty.



And, for the record: I'm opposed to the electric chair.
I'm for the electric sofa....so we can take six at a time.


And, to speed it up....make the last meal a buffet.

 

[JoeB131]

[



No society is civilized unless it protects the innocent by dealing appropriately with the guilty.

That means the death penalty.

And, for the record: I'm opposed to the electric chair.
I'm for the electric sofa....so we can take six at a time.


And, to speed it up....make the last meal a buffet.

I really have to wonder where this level of anger comes from.

The Right Wing has gotten away with absolutely crazy ideas on crime prevention.

If more guns, more prisons and more executions meant we are safer, we'd have the LOWEST crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.

Now your bloodlust aside, (unless you had someone in your family murdered, it's really kind of disturbing) the problems with the death penalty are...

1) It provides no real detterent.

2) It is obscenely expensive to litigate.

3) And you always have the possibility of accidently executing someone who didn't do the crime.

In Illinois, we came close to #3 more times than we actually executed people. Corrupt Cops, over ambitious prosecutors, inept judges and emotional juries put 15 men who didn't do what they were accused of on Death Row, only to be eventually cleared because college students actually did the jobs they didn't do and discovered that they were innocent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[



No society is civilized unless it protects the innocent by dealing appropriately with the guilty.

That means the death penalty.

And, for the record: I'm opposed to the electric chair.
I'm for the electric sofa....so we can take six at a time.


And, to speed it up....make the last meal a buffet.

I really have to wonder where this level of anger comes from.

The Right Wing has gotten away with absolutely crazy ideas on crime prevention.

If more guns, more prisons and more executions meant we are safer, we'd have the LOWEST crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.

Now your bloodlust aside, (unless you had someone in your family murdered, it's really kind of disturbing) the problems with the death penalty are...

1) It provides no real detterent.

2) It is obscenely expensive to litigate.

3) And you always have the possibility of accidently executing someone who didn't do the crime.

In Illinois, we came close to #3 more times than we actually executed people. Corrupt Cops, over ambitious prosecutors, inept judges and emotional juries put 15 men who didn't do what they were accused of on Death Row, only to be eventually cleared because college students actually did the jobs they didn't do and discovered that they were innocent.

"I really have to wonder where this level of anger comes from."

Let's test you ability to judge reality: You think I'm angry......

Go back and read all the posts I've written to you.


Isn't it evident that I'm laughing at you?


I mean, really.

 

[NoNukes]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.
a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.
Dennis Prager

c. Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil.


2. The domestic version of pacifism is practiced regularly by Liberal elected officials. The was Massachusetts Democrat Governor Dukakis, who " believed that it was “rehabilitative” for prisoners to be allowed to roam the streets unsupervised in what was known as the Prison Furlough Program.... convicted murderer Willie Horton was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back....Horton punched, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes – and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.
When Barnes’ fiancée Angela returned that evening, Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice." Dukakis & Willie*Horton ? The Forerunner


3. Then there was Illinois Democrat Governor Pat Quinn..."To have a consistent, perfect death penalty system ... that's impossible in our state," Quinn told reporters. "I think it's the right and just thing to abolish the death penalty and punish those who commit heinous crimes -- evil people -- with life in prison without parole and no chance of release."
Illinois governor signs death penalty ban | Reuters


4. And California Democrat Pat Brown:
"Taking a page from Dukakis’ book, California Governor Jerry Brown is now making a habit of paroling convicted murders. According to Brown, he expunged the records of 128 felons last year, and also gave the greenlight to parole for 377 convicted murders, a full 81 percent of all those the parole board recommended go free. Virtually all other California governors have rejected such pleas from the parole board."
CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers



And, in a related story....

5. "Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons
Elmira, N.Y. - Vice President Joe Biden says he doesn't think you need assault style rifles in order to protect your home from an intruder.
He made those comments on Tuesday night at a facebook town hall meeting.

Biden was asked by a woman named Kate who wondered if the federal government bans certain military-style weapons and high capacity magazines, would that make law abiding citizens a target for criminals. This was his response.

Biden said, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun. Have the shells for the .12 gauge shotgun and I promise you, as I told my wife, if ever there is a problem, just walk on the balcony here or walk out and put that double barrel shotgun in the air and fire two blasts outside the house. You don't need an AR 15.”
Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons - WETM 18 Online



And, by an inexplicable coincidence, Vice-President Biden happens to belong to the same political party as Michael Dukakis, Pat Quinn and Pat Brown.




How 'bout this...

"Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court."
Democrats want to let convicted felons and felons in prison vote! Do you think this should be allowed or not?


And....
"Currently jailed felons are only allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can vote including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of votes. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would vote democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights."

Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this election, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to vote in all local and national elections.
Why Democrats Want Jailed Felons To Vote | Medford Oregon City Search



What's the common denominator.....?

Why do so many people on the right attack Obama for being aggressive when he defends America?

 

[JoeB131]

[

"I really have to wonder where this level of anger comes from."

Let's test you ability to judge reality: You think I'm angry......

Go back and read all the posts I've written to you.


Isn't it evident that I'm laughing at you?


I mean, really.

No, what's really evident to me is that you are seriously disturbed with some messed up values,

But I'll take it as a concession that you admit the DP, incarceration and guns only really appeal to your visceral anger and don't do anything you actually advocate.


Frankly, I'd rather be Germany- no guns, no death penatly and only locking up the people who really need to be locked up... and last year they had only 600 murders to our 16,000.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.
a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”
b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.
Dennis Prager

c. Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil.


2. The domestic version of pacifism is practiced regularly by Liberal elected officials. The was Massachusetts Democrat Governor Dukakis, who " believed that it was “rehabilitative” for prisoners to be allowed to roam the streets unsupervised in what was known as the Prison Furlough Program.... convicted murderer Willie Horton was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back....Horton punched, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes – and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.
When Barnes’ fiancée Angela returned that evening, Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice." Dukakis & Willie*Horton ? The Forerunner


3. Then there was Illinois Democrat Governor Pat Quinn..."To have a consistent, perfect death penalty system ... that's impossible in our state," Quinn told reporters. "I think it's the right and just thing to abolish the death penalty and punish those who commit heinous crimes -- evil people -- with life in prison without parole and no chance of release."
Illinois governor signs death penalty ban | Reuters


4. And California Democrat Pat Brown:
"Taking a page from Dukakis’ book, California Governor Jerry Brown is now making a habit of paroling convicted murders. According to Brown, he expunged the records of 128 felons last year, and also gave the greenlight to parole for 377 convicted murders, a full 81 percent of all those the parole board recommended go free. Virtually all other California governors have rejected such pleas from the parole board."
CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers



And, in a related story....

5. "Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons
Elmira, N.Y. - Vice President Joe Biden says he doesn't think you need assault style rifles in order to protect your home from an intruder.
He made those comments on Tuesday night at a facebook town hall meeting.

Biden was asked by a woman named Kate who wondered if the federal government bans certain military-style weapons and high capacity magazines, would that make law abiding citizens a target for criminals. This was his response.

Biden said, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun. Have the shells for the .12 gauge shotgun and I promise you, as I told my wife, if ever there is a problem, just walk on the balcony here or walk out and put that double barrel shotgun in the air and fire two blasts outside the house. You don't need an AR 15.”
Joe Biden Says You Don't Need Assault Weapons - WETM 18 Online



And, by an inexplicable coincidence, Vice-President Biden happens to belong to the same political party as Michael Dukakis, Pat Quinn and Pat Brown.




How 'bout this...

"Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court."
Democrats want to let convicted felons and felons in prison vote! Do you think this should be allowed or not?


And....
"Currently jailed felons are only allowed to vote in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can vote including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of votes. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would vote democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights."

Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this election, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to vote in all local and national elections.
Why Democrats Want Jailed Felons To Vote | Medford Oregon City Search



What's the common denominator.....?

Why do so many people on the right attack Obama for being aggressive when he defends America?

Why do so many people on the Left link to a post to which they are, ostensibly, responding...then change the subject to an unrelated one?


Could it be because they have no way to counter the post in question?


That means you, Noodles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"I really have to wonder where this level of anger comes from."

Let's test you ability to judge reality: You think I'm angry......

Go back and read all the posts I've written to you.


Isn't it evident that I'm laughing at you?


I mean, really.

No, what's really evident to me is that you are seriously disturbed with some messed up values,

But I'll take it as a concession that you admit the DP, incarceration and guns only really appeal to your visceral anger and don't do anything you actually advocate.


Frankly, I'd rather be Germany- no guns, no death penatly and only locking up the people who really need to be locked up... and last year they had only 600 murders to our 16,000.

If truth is stranger than fiction, then you must be truth!

Case solved: Erroneous Joe has no reality-based opinions.