Jump to content

six-hopper

Honk if Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted you.

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Well, Michigan doesn't have capital punishment, but it does put convicted murderers in prison, and yet lots of people still get murdered here.  So should we conclude that the threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent, either, and just not bother punishing murderers at all? 

I see prison as more of a protection for society than a punishment or deterrent.  If there was some 100% guarantee that a murderer would be a wonderful person the rest of his life, there would be no need for a long prison term.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

That probably won't fly, because the Supreme Court is created by the Constitution, and thus it is  likely to be held that the requirements for its justices cannot properly be altered by an act of Congress, and that no act of Congress can properly tell the Court how to govern itself.

The lower federal courts were created by legislation, and are thus subject to requirements imposed by that legislation.  But the Supreme Court is different.

I think this might be correct.   I also don't think it's going to pass the Senate either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pfife said:

I think this might be correct.   I also don't think it's going to pass the Senate either.

 

 

That too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I suspect it doesn't work as a deterrent because those individuals who are committing crime heinous enough to warrant receiving the death penalty generally aren't concerned with the negative consequences of their actions at the time they are committing them

I believe I have read that what science exists in this field supports this view.

Also - certainty of apprehension is a far better deterrent than severity of punishment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, six-hopper said:

That probably won't fly, because the Supreme Court is created by the Constitution, and thus it is  likely to be held that the requirements for its justices cannot properly be altered by an act of Congress, and that no act of Congress can properly tell the Court how to govern itself.

The lower federal courts were created by legislation, and are thus subject to requirements imposed by that legislation.  But the Supreme Court is different.

not completely true at least in theory. The Congress is the most equal of the three equal branches in that it does have unlimited power to remove members of the other two branches. The Congress could promulgate a set of rules to the effect that certain violations were grounds for impeachment and to the degree the court believed Congress was serious, they would be well advised to comply. heII of a high bar though - as per WIKI, only one JOTSCOTUS has ever been impeached and he was not convicted. The impeachment of even a district court federal judge is a rare and painful event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, six-hopper said:

Well, Michigan doesn't have capital punishment, but it does put convicted murderers in prison, and yet lots of people still get murdered here.  So should we conclude that the threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent, either, and just not bother punishing murderers at all?

Imprisonment does so much more than act as a deterrent.

It is done to keep society safe, ideally to rehabilitate the convicted, and perhaps most importantly line the pockets of the operators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Violent crimes in the US have been decreasing pretty much my whole life while death row executions became more rare.

Clearly we need more executions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

not completely true at least in theory. The Congress is the most equal of the three equal branches in that it does have unlimited power to remove members of the other two branches. The Congress could promulgate a set of rules to the effect that certain violations were grounds for impeachment and to the degree the court believed Congress was serious, they would be well advised to comply. heII of a high bar though - as per WIKI, only one JOTSCOTUS has ever been impeached and he was not convicted. The impeachment of even a district court federal judge is a rare and painful event.

Congress already has an effectively unbounded power to impeach a Supreme Court justice, as the potential grounds for impeschment are essentially undefined, or perhaps more accurately are within the power of Congress to define on the fly as it sees fit.  So codifyng a set of rules the violation of which Congress deems grounds for impeachment would probably be superfluous at best, and might even have the opposite effect of what is intended, by putting what might be interpreted as boundaries on what is currently unbounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Congress already has an effectively unbounded power to impeach a Supreme Court justice, as the potential grounds for impeschment are essentially undefined, or perhaps more accurately are within the power of Congress to define on the fly as it sees fit.  So codifyng a set of rules the violation of which Congress deems grounds for impeachment would probably be superfluous at best, and might even have the opposite effect of what is intended, by putting what might be interpreted as boundaries on what is currently unbounded.

indeed, no doubt there is level at which it would be superfluous and possibly counterproductive  but I could see it if there were some single or small set of particular issues where the view of the public had moved decisively away from the view in Washington about what was acceptable and a Congress wanted to put everyone on notice that things had changed. I don't think any such scenario is likely though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I see prison as more of a protection for society than a punishment or deterrent.  If there was some 100% guarantee that a murderer would be a wonderful person the rest of his life, there would be no need for a long prison term.  

I lean this direction as well.  

Cyntoia Brown is an example of one who, by the like, may have had her life redeemed by being sent to prison.   She did the work while incarcerated and earned that second chance.   I hope her life goes well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

indeed, no doubt there is level at which it would be superfluous and possibly counterproductive  but I could see it if there were some single or small set of particular issues where the view of the public had moved decisively away from the view in Washington about what was acceptable and a Congress wanted to put everyone on notice that things had changed. I don't think any such scenario is likely though.

Yes, it's unlikely.  Anyway, I can't think of an incident in which a Supreme Court justice has been accused of a crime or other bad conduct while in office.  And as for past conduct, nominees for the Court are investigated pretty thoroughly these days.  Although it is always possible that someone will come forward who claims to have known a nominee 35 years ago when they were in high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Melody said:

I lean this direction as well.  

Cyntoia Brown is an example of one who, by the like, may have had her life redeemed by being sent to prison.   She did the work while incarcerated and earned that second chance.   I hope her life goes well.  

I hope that she doesn't shoot another sleeping man in the back of the head, steal his wallet and his truck and his guns , then brag that she shot him just to see what it felt like to kill someone and threaten to kill someone else the same way.

Actually, if she does kill someone else, I hope that she does again do the stealing and bragging and threatening, so even a governor as idiotic as the one who let her out won't make that same mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

I hope that she doesn't shoot another sleeping man in the back of the head, steal his wallet and his truck and his guns , then brag that she shot him just to see what it felt like to kill someone and threaten to kill someone else the same way.

Actually, if she does kill someone else, I hope that she does again do the stealing and bragging and threatening, so even a governor as idiotic as the one who let her out won't make that same mistake.

As I said, incarnation may have saved her life.  No, she wasn’t totally an innocent.  But she was sixteen and in an environment not conducive to maturing into an adult who makes good decisions.   She absolutely should have gone to jail.  It is what she did while in jail that merits a second chance, especially considering her age at the time of the offense.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Melody said:

As I said, incarnation may have saved her life. 

LOL - theological Freudian slip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

LOL - theological Freudian slip?

In what way?   Since I am sort-of Calvinist in leaning (maybe a 3.5er) I don’t find it outside the realm of possibility that certain hardships are ordained for the individual’s benefit.  In fact, foreknowledge and foreordination are my husband’s and my kitchen table topic this evening in another context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Melody said:

In what way?   Since I am sort-of Calvinist in leaning (maybe a 3.5er) I don’t find it outside the realm of possibility that certain hardships are ordained for the individual’s benefit.  In fact, foreknowledge and foreordination are my husband’s and my kitchen table topic this evening in another context.

Look at the spelling of incarceration 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

LOL - theological Freudian slip?

Oh, just got it. That was courtesy of my ipad’s autocorrect.  Should have read, “incarceration.”  Though I suppose incarnation would fit Calvinist doctrine.  Just not necessarily my belief in full. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CMRivdog said:

Look at the spelling of incarceration 

Yeah. Just noticed that.  Lol. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Melody said:

As I said, incarnation may have saved her life.  No, she wasn’t totally an innocent.  But she was sixteen and in an environment not conducive to maturing into an adult who makes good decisions.   She absolutely should have gone to jail.  It is what she did while in jail that merits a second chance, especially considering her age at the time of the offense.   

She wasn't totally an innocent?  That strikes me as just a bit of an understatement.  Lots of sixteen-year-olds in unhealthy environments do unwise and unwholesome things.  But most of them do not shoot someone in the back of the head.  

Maybe she has completed, with flying colors, all twelve steps in the program for recovering murderers.  But as you may have inferred, I am not entirely convinced that having this allegedly newly minted wonderful person running around loose is a good thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

She wasn't totally an innocent?  That strikes me as just a bit of an understatement.  Lots of sixteen-year-olds in unhealthy environments do unwise and unwholesom things.  But most of them do not shoot someone in the back of the head.  

Maybe she has completed, with flying colors, all twelve steps in the program for recovering murderers.  But as you may have inferred, I am not entirely convinced that having this allegedly newly minted wonderful person running around loose is a good thing.  

Most of them haven’t lived the kind of life where are raped multiple times per day to enrich a boyfriend/pimp..  Fewer of that group would complete high school and college while they were in prison. Even fewer among those never in prison.  There are no guarantees in this life, but chances are better than even that in this case.    I would not call her, “newly minted,” since she spent fifteen years getting to this point.   Having received mercy, it is on her going forward.   I haven no expectation but many hopes and prayers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Melody said:

Most of them haven’t lived the kind of life where are raped multiple times per day to enrich a boyfriend/pimp..  Fewer of that group would complete high school and college while they were in prison. Even fewer among those never in prison.  There are no guarantees in this life, but chances are better than even that in this case.    I would not call her, “newly minted,” since she spent fifteen years getting to this point.   Having received mercy, it is on her going forward.   I haven no expectation but many hopes and prayers.  

I have low expectations.  Maybe she will exceed them.  But I wouldn't turn my back on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×