US justice starts its climb into the 20th century!
Michilín
of people whose crimes were committed when they were children.
unconstitutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Bars Death Penalty for Juvenile Killers
By DAVID STOUT New York Times.
Published: March 1, 2005
ASHINGTON, March 1 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in one of the most
closely watched capital punishment cases in years, that imposing the
death penalty on convicted murderers who were younger than 18 at the
time of their crimes is unconstitutional.
The 5-to-4 decision, arising from a Missouri case, holds that
executing young killers violates "the evolving standards of decency
that mark the progress of a maturing society," and that American
society has come to regard juveniles as less culpable than adult
criminals.
The ruling, which acknowledged "the overwhelming weight of
international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," erases the
death sentences imposed on about 70 defendants who were juveniles at
the time they killed. Although 19 states nominally permit the
execution of juvenile murderers, only Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma
have executed any in the past decade.
The majority decision was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. It
declared that prohibiting the execution of juvenile killers is a
natural and logical conclusion to the court's ruling in 2002 that
executing mentally retarded offenders is categorically
unconstitutional.
"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many
reasons between childhood and adulthood," Justice Kennedy wrote, in an
opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. "It is, we conclude, the age at
which the line for death eligibility ought to rest."
The four dissenters - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor - bitterly
disagreed.
"The court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding
the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th
birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense,"
Justice O'Connor wrote. "Neither the objective evidence of
contemporary societal values, nor the court's moral-proportionately
analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling."
Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and
Justice Thomas, said the majority had made "a mockery" of
constitutional precedent and was based "on the flimsiest of grounds."
"The court thus proclaims itself sore arbiter of our nation's moral
standards - and in the course of discharging that awesome
responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign
courts and legislatures," Justice Scalia wrote.
Today's ruling in Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633, arose from a Missouri
murder that even the majority on the court acknowledged as
particularly heinous. It overturned one of the Supreme Court's own
rulings, handed down in 1989 when the lineup of justices was
different, that upheld capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds.
In 1993, Christopher Simmons was a 17-year-old high school junior when
he and two younger teenagers burglarized a house. By coincidence, a
woman inside the house recognized Mr. Simmons from a previous car
crash involving both of them.
As the defendant admitted later, her recognition convinced him to kill
the woman, whom he abducted, bound and threw into a nearby creek to
drown. He was arrested after bragging of the crime, convicted and
sentenced to death after a jury recommended that punishment.
In August 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the death
sentence, deciding 4 to 3 that subjecting a juvenile killer to
execution was unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual punishment" and
resentencing Simmons to life in prison without parole. The United
States Supreme Court upheld the state court today.
"When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the state can exact
forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties," the majority held
today, "but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to
attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."
Michilín
braven...@postmaster.co.uk
prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
loaves of bread.
MacRobert
reflect but wrote anyway:
Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
stealing three loaves of bread.
Stephen
Cory Bhreckan
Bear in mind that from 1972 to 1976 there was no death penaly in the US.
Then bloody mindedness took over the majority (but not all) of the
population. Polititians use fear as a club to get reelected.
Ian Morrison
news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com
The assertion does not need to be supported by actual cases, as it was a
statement of what *could* occur, not what "has" occurred.
Are you suggesting that it *couldn't* happen?
------
Ian O.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Duke of URL
The significant result of this hare-brained decision will be more
professional teen-age murderers, safe in the knowledge that they won't be
executed, indeed, they won't even be kept behind bars past age 25 (21 in
some cases). I listened today to a long-term NYPD Homicide Detective explain
that it's already normal for the drug-dealers to have a 14- or 15-yo off a
competitor; they rarely get tried for Capital Murder and even more rarely in
NY will get a death penalty. The dealer promises to look after the killer's
family (if he has one) and the kid takes the rap, all proud of himself.
The gentleman explained that far more of these contract child-killers are
now expected to show up.
Ah yes, isn't it wonderful the way the Men In Black make their decisions...
Duke of URL
news:7c5bdaa09d0516812e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
The only way it could happen is if said bread-thief already had a history of
violent crimes and was convicted of using violence to steal that bread.
Cory Bhreckan
Actually, it's "serious or violent" felonies that are required to invoke
the "three strikes" rule.
http://rwor.org/a/v20/970-79/974/3strike.htm
The "serious" part isn't quite so clear. Apparently burglary (non
violent) is also considered "serious". See above URL. If someone were to
burglarize a bakery to steal a loaf of bread or shoplift $150 worth of
video tapes
http://www.threestrikes.org/washpost_0.html
(and get caught) then that person would be eligible for 25 years to life
in California.
Cory Bhreckan
>
> "MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
> news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com...
> > On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
> > reflect but wrote anyway:
> >
> >>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
> >>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
> >>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
> >>loaves of bread.
> >
> > Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
> > stealing three loaves of bread.
> >
> Of course he won't because there are none.
He said that there could be, not that there were. How about someone
convicted for shoplifting $150 worth of video tapes?
http://www.threestrikes.org/washpost_0.html
> The significant result of this hare-brained decision will be more
> professional teen-age murderers, safe in the knowledge that they won't be
> executed, indeed, they won't even be kept behind bars past age 25 (21 in
> some cases).
Please cite this. The teenager who this decision was based on was tried
as an adult, this was not overruled. I saw nothing in the ruling stating
that he would be released at age 21 or 25. This only applies to children
tried as juveniles.
Children lack the long range thought capabilities (in most cases). When
I was a teenager I thought I was invincible, most adolescents do. Why
else would they be so easy to recruit into the armed forces of the
world?
> I listened today to a long-term NYPD Homicide Detective explain
> that it's already normal for the drug-dealers to have a 14- or 15-yo off a
> competitor; they rarely get tried for Capital Murder and even more rarely in
> NY will get a death penalty. The dealer promises to look after the killer's
> family (if he has one) and the kid takes the rap, all proud of himself.
> The gentleman explained that far more of these contract child-killers are
> now expected to show up.
> Ah yes, isn't it wonderful the way the Men In Black make their decisions...
The kid you committed this crime sounds pretty evil to me but I don't
think that killing children is in the best interests of a civilised
society. Let him rot in prison.
Michilín
Only if you have two previous offences against you and I believe that
with the Great Enlightemnent (9/11) a lot of that Pilgrim Father
cruelty is being questioned.
Michilín
Dave
"Cory Bhreckan" <CBhr...@maelstrom.com> wrote in message
news:4225076F...@maelstrom.com...
http://www.geniebusters.org/915/35b_prison.html
Rape, especially gang rape, is almost exclusively a black on white
occurrence. More than 90% of prison rapists are black and the instance of a
white raping a black is the rarest of all. If this rankles your ideals about
racial harmony and the essential equality of the races, etc. -- tough shit.
Most rape victims are young and white... Blacks do sometimes rape other
blacks, however; if you're black, you're not in the clear.
Many prisoners just kill themselves. Those who live and are released
re-enter society every bit as fucked up as you might expect.
One alternative to rape is protective custody, in which a prisoner is
removed from the general prison population. This is also known as "solitary
confinement." Let's look at another excerpt from Dr. Gilligan's book, this
time from Chapter 6. This is the story of Lloyd A., who was arrested and
sent to prison for a "minor, nonviolent crime." There's that same expression
again. It must be a euphemism for something. I would guess that both Jeffrey
and Lloyd were arrested for possessing or selling drugs, although there are
other possibilities. Anyway, here is what happened to Lloyd:
Duke of URL
> in California.
Nope, can't see it. Theft of a loaf of bread (or 3) would be a *very* minor
misdemeanor in every state in the Union.
Séimí mac Liam
news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com:
Jeex. I leave you guys alone for just a few minutes(oh, has it been several
days? Well, any way) and look what I come back to.
<tap,tap,tap>
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Duke of URL
> Duke of URL wrote:
>>
>> "MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
>> news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com...
>> > On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
>> > reflect but wrote anyway:
>> >
>> >>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
>> >>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
>> >>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>> >>loaves of bread.
>> >
>> > Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
>> > stealing three loaves of bread.
>> >
>> Of course he won't because there are none.
>
> He said that there could be, not that there were. How about
No, he did not say "could", implying possibility, he said "can" implying
almost certainty.
someone
> convicted for shoplifting $150 worth of video tapes?
> http://www.threestrikes.org/washpost_0.html
>
>
>> The significant result of this hare-brained decision will be more
>> professional teen-age murderers, safe in the knowledge that they won't be
>> executed, indeed, they won't even be kept behind bars past age 25 (21 in
>> some cases).
>
> Please cite this. The teenager who this decision was based on was tried
> as an adult, this was not overruled. I saw nothing in the ruling stating
> that he would be released at age 21 or 25. This only applies to children
> tried as juveniles.
And that's how 99.999% of them are tried, when they commit crimes, serious
or minor.
You're correct - this particular one probably won't be out at 25, although
the way parole boards work, who knows?
>
> Children lack the long range thought capabilities (in most cases). When
> I was a teenager I thought I was invincible, most adolescents do. Why
> else would they be so easy to recruit into the armed forces of the
> world?
>
Are you seriously telling me that when you were 13, you didn't know it was
not only wrong, but evil, to kill another person in order to rob him? C'mon
now.
>> I listened today to a long-term NYPD Homicide Detective explain
>> that it's already normal for the drug-dealers to have a 14- or 15-yo off
>> a
>> competitor; they rarely get tried for Capital Murder and even more rarely
>> in
>> NY will get a death penalty. The dealer promises to look after the
>> killer's
>> family (if he has one) and the kid takes the rap, all proud of himself.
>> The gentleman explained that far more of these contract child-killers are
>> now expected to show up.
>> Ah yes, isn't it wonderful the way the Men In Black make their
>> decisions...
>
> The kid you committed this crime sounds pretty evil to me but I don't
> think that killing children is in the best interests of a civilised
> society. Let him rot in prison.
But it won't happen. That's the point. The most he can now expect for
"punishment" will be 25-to-life, which means no more than 14 behind bars.
Unless he knifes another inmate...
Bryn
<Cann...@rsed2look.itup> writes
OK!
A slice of pizza then!
Three strikes and you're banged up ?
Google says:
3 Strikes (2000): Brian Hooks, N'Bushe Wright, E-40, David Alan ...
... well with the movie's specific target, the three strikes law ... a
crime as petty as
stealing a slice of pizza ... At times, 3 Strikes presents a clever
caricature of a ...
http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/t/three-strikes.shtml
Three Strikes - News Articles
... in how and when to apply the three-strikes law ... most nonviolent
offenses and lesser
drug charges as third strikes. ... ex-convict accused of stealing a
slice of pizza ...
http://www.threestrikes.org/latimes_8.html
Three Strikes - Fresno Bee article
... DeWayne Williams, known to most as "the pizza thief," has been the
cause celebre
for three strike opponents. Convicted for stealing a slice of pizza from
a ...
http://www.threestrikes.org/smct_0.html
Three Strikes Law - Bob Parks - Men's News Daily™
... resulted in the first highly publicized Three Strikes case where a
man, who had
two strikes, went to jail for 25 years to life for stealing a slice of
pizza. ...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/parks/02/parks022102.htm
Opponents of three-strikes proposition sue over ballot language
... PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writer Last Updated 3:20 am ... for
stealing T-shirts or
a slice of pizza ... Thursday, supporters of the current three-strikes
law wrote ...
http://www.prisonactivists.com/forums/ index.php/topic,
Three-strikes works?
... for the rest of his life for stealing a couple slices of pizza or a
... Finally, they
argue that California “has the toughest three-strikes law in the
nation ...
http://www.sheldensays.com/Com-twenty-five.htm
Darleen's Place: California Prop 66 - gutting the 3 Strikes Law
... The impetus behind the 3 Strikes Law was the infamous ... That is
one trait all
three-strikers share. ... serving a life's sentence for merely stealing
a slice pizza. ...
http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog/
archives/2004/10/california_prop.html -
Donna J. Warren for LA Community College Board
... In addition to the human toll, Three Strikes has a ... about $1.5
million to incarcerate
a third-strike prisoner for ... 40, 50, 195 years for stealing a slice
of pizza ...
http://www.donnawarren.com/issues/threestrikes.html
Families to Amend California's 3-Strikes: 3-Strike Stories in the ...
... absolute obscenity'' of the application of three strikes to Gregory
... Probably the
most famous 3-strikes case is the ... years-life for stealing a slice of
pepperoni ...
http://www.facts1.com/general/news.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
--
Bryn
To email remove GREMILNS
Adam Whyte-Settlar
<braven...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109716604.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
> loaves of bread.
Hey.
Don't steal three loaves of bread and you've got nothing to worry about.
A W-S
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:112a4e5...@corp.supernews.com...
You know Duke - I can't even *buy* decent bread down here (NZ).
A W-S
mac...@eircom.net
mac...@eircom.net
Also bear in mind that the death penalty apologists always cite
deterrent as their justification. It always seemed strange, that one.
Especially in the US with one of the worst murder rates in the world.
What's also strange is that the majority of apologists cite themselves
as religious! They will not actually admit that they see the death
penalty is nothing but revenge.
Revenge is mine, sayeth the Lord....
Mike
Madra Dubh
You have a source for this piece of misinformation?
Madra Dubh
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42258f90$1...@clear.net.nz...
Bake your own, yah thick tosser..............
Madra Dubh
"Ian Morrison" <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7c5bdaa09d0516812e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Anything CAN happen and anywhere, including the utopias you wooly haired
Socialists dream up.
The point is, it hasn't happened and in the case of Socialist utopias, ain't
likely to happen.
And the rest of it is an effort to once again slip a little dig in.
Which of course drew you in like a vulture smelling a dead
body.....................
Madra Dubh
<mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1109761274....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I did and could find no reference to someone going to prison for life for
stealing three loaves of bread.
Did I miss something?
S Viemeister
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42258f90$1...@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > You know Duke - I can't even *buy* decent bread down here (NZ).
>
> Bake your own, yah thick tosser..............
How are you and your KitchenAid getting along?
Sheila
Cory Bhreckan
>
> "Cory Bhreckan" <CBhr...@maelstrom.com> wrote in message
> news:42251FD8...@maelstrom.com...
> > Duke of URL wrote:
> >>
> >> "MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
> >> news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com...
> >> > On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
> >> > reflect but wrote anyway:
> >> >
> >> >>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
> >> >>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
> >> >>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
> >> >>loaves of bread.
> >> >
> >> > Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
> >> > stealing three loaves of bread.
> >> >
> >> Of course he won't because there are none.
> >
> > He said that there could be, not that there were. How about
>
> No, he did not say "could", implying possibility, he said "can" implying
> almost certainty.
The law considers burglary to be serious enough to invoke the "three
strikes" rule so, in fact, he's technically right.
>
> someone
> > convicted for shoplifting $150 worth of video tapes?
> > http://www.threestrikes.org/washpost_0.html
> >
> >
> >> The significant result of this hare-brained decision will be more
> >> professional teen-age murderers, safe in the knowledge that they won't be
> >> executed, indeed, they won't even be kept behind bars past age 25 (21 in
> >> some cases).
> >
> > Please cite this.
I see that you were unable to. That speaks volumes.
> The teenager who this decision was based on was tried
> > as an adult, this was not overruled. I saw nothing in the ruling stating
> > that he would be released at age 21 or 25. This only applies to children
> > tried as juveniles.
>
> And that's how 99.999% of them are tried, when they commit crimes, serious
> or minor.
That's rather broad, 99.999% of who? All children under 18? For what
crimes? Shoplifting? Truency? Murder? I'd like to see some proof.
> You're correct - this particular one probably won't be out at 25, although
> the way parole boards work, who knows?
Most states have life *without* parole sentences, some states have no
parole at all.
> >
> > Children lack the long range thought capabilities (in most cases). When
> > I was a teenager I thought I was invincible, most adolescents do. Why
> > else would they be so easy to recruit into the armed forces of the
> > world?
> >
> Are you seriously telling me that when you were 13, you didn't know it was
> not only wrong, but evil, to kill another person in order to rob him? C'mon
> now.
I said nothing about knowing what was right or wrong, I was responding
to your claim that children think that they can excape the consequences
of their actions because of their age. You are trying to change the
subject, which also speaks volumes.
>
> >> I listened today to a long-term NYPD Homicide Detective explain
> >> that it's already normal for the drug-dealers to have a 14- or 15-yo off
> >> a
> >> competitor; they rarely get tried for Capital Murder and even more rarely
> >> in
> >> NY will get a death penalty. The dealer promises to look after the
> >> killer's
> >> family (if he has one) and the kid takes the rap, all proud of himself.
> >> The gentleman explained that far more of these contract child-killers are
> >> now expected to show up.
> >> Ah yes, isn't it wonderful the way the Men In Black make their
> >> decisions...
> >
> > The kid you committed this crime sounds pretty evil to me but I don't
> > think that killing children is in the best interests of a civilised
> > society. Let him rot in prison.
>
> But it won't happen. That's the point. The most he can now expect for
> "punishment" will be 25-to-life, which means no more than 14 behind bars.
> Unless he knifes another inmate...
I suppose it's usless to ask for proof of this, you haven't provided any
so far.
Cory Bhreckan
>
> "Ian Morrison" <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7c5bdaa09d0516812e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > "MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
> > news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com
> >
> >> On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
> >> reflect but wrote anyway:
> >>
> >> >Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
> >> >prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
> >> >capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
> >> >loaves of bread.
> >>
> >> Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
> >> stealing three loaves of bread.
> >
> > The assertion does not need to be supported by actual cases, as it was a
> > statement of what *could* occur, not what "has" occurred.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that it *couldn't* happen?
>
> Anything CAN happen and anywhere, including the utopias you wooly haired
> Socialists dream up.
What does the economic principal of government control of production
have to do with criminal law?
> The point is, it hasn't happened
That wasn't his point at all. He said "You can go to prison for life in
California"
^^^
Not "Someone went to prison in California"
> and in the case of Socialist utopias, ain't
> likely to happen.
Again you bring up an economic theory. What is your fixation on
socialism?
> And the rest of it is an effort to once again slip a little dig in.
Dig in at what? Socialism?
> Which of course drew you in like a vulture smelling a dead
> body.....................
Would those be Socialist vultures?
MacRobert
<iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>"MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
>news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com
>
>> On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
>> reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>> >Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
>> >prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
>> >capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>> >loaves of bread.
>>
>> Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
>> stealing three loaves of bread.
>
>The assertion does not need to be supported by actual cases, as it was a
>statement of what *could* occur, not what "has" occurred.
Then let him cite some proof that stealing three loaves of bread
*could* send a person to prison for life.
>
>Are you suggesting that it *couldn't* happen?
I am suggesting that 'bravenewwhirl' should back his assertion or
clarify his meaning.
Stephen
MacRobert
<br...@GREMILNSfinhall.demon.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>In message <ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com>, MacRobert
><Cann...@rsed2look.itup> writes
>>On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
>>reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>>>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
>>>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
>>>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>>>loaves of bread.
>>
>>Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
>>stealing three loaves of bread.
>>
>>Stephen
>
>OK!
> A slice of pizza then!
>Three strikes and you're banged up ?
>
>
>Google says:
>
>3 Strikes (2000): Brian Hooks, N'Bushe Wright, E-40, David Alan ...
>... well with the movie's specific target, the three strikes law ... a
>crime as petty as
>stealing a slice of pizza ... At times, 3 Strikes presents a clever
>caricature of a ...
>
>http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/t/three-strikes.shtml
(remainder URL's for same case snipped)
Hi Bryn.
I absolutely abhore the 'three strikes' laws and would like to see
them struck from the books. Why they were deemed necessary is a whole
'nother subject, but whatever justification drove them, the results
are frequently unjust.
However, if I allow you to substitute pizza for bread, there'll be no
topping the thread drift.
Stephen
Jackie Mulheron
"MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
> On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
> reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
>>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
>>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>>loaves of bread.
>
> Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
> stealing three loaves of bread.
Juan Gomez of Santa Barbara. Currently on death row.
Duke of URL
news:neV265AO...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> OK!
> A slice of pizza then!
> Three strikes and you're banged up ?
[references snipped]
Fascinating! Of course, you must keep in mind - that's California, a state
in no way representative of the other 49...
I'll have to look at a couple of the articles; I probably agree with you
that it's nutty.
Tell me, under Brit law, what do they do about constant repeaters?
Stephen Copinger
"MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
<snip>
>>> Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
>>> stealing three loaves of bread.
>>
>>The assertion does not need to be supported by actual cases, as it was a
>>statement of what *could* occur, not what "has" occurred.
>
> Then let him cite some proof that stealing three loaves of bread
> *could* send a person to prison for life.
>
doesn't), if someone is convicted of three cases of housebreaking (sorry
"burglarization"), when each time all he/she takes is a loaf of bread, then
as far as I can see, the third conviction can result in a sentence of life
imprisonment. That is of course subject to the caveat that I have no
knowlege of any of the barbarian jurisdictions [1] and am taking this
entirely from the sources cited on this thread together with a strict
application of logic to those sources. This is of course a risky proposition
especially when trying to calculate the results of USAian laws.
[1] i.e. furth of Scotland.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
--
This is a personal email, which does not necessarily express the views or
position of Highland Law Practice.
Duke of URL
news:42258f90$1...@clear.net.nz...
> You know Duke - I can't even *buy* decent bread down here (NZ).
??? Why in the world not?
Have you considered buying a bread-machine? I see a lot of really nice ones
on eBay & so on. Then you can make it exactly to suit you.
Duke of URL
news:1109761659.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Also bear in mind that the death penalty apologists always cite
> deterrent as their justification. It always seemed strange, that one.
Why do you say "always"? I and many other death-penalty supporters consider
it punishment, not deterrent.
> What's also strange is that the majority of apologists cite themselves
> as religious! They will not actually admit that they see the death
> penalty is nothing but revenge.
That is a non-sequitur. My religion has a commandent: Thou Shalt Not Do
Murder.
Further, so what if it's revenge. You say that like it's a bad thing.
Duke of URL
> Would those be Socialist vultures?
Of course. You really MUST keep up with your Politicalanimal Studies! It's
Socialist vultures, Commie rats, Fascist dogs & Capitalist wolves. Sheesh.
Duke of URL
news:S1kVd.311191$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The point is, it hasn't happened and in the case of Socialist utopias,
> ain't likely to happen.
> And the rest of it is an effort to once again slip a little dig in.
> Which of course drew you in like a vulture smelling a dead
> body.....................
Hate to have to support Ian, Madra, but he was right. Bryn posted a list of
references about a career criminal with a long history of violence and
multiple jailings who ekshully was sentenced to Life for stealing a pizza in
the Soviet Socialist State of California.
Duke of URL
> I suppose it's usless to ask for proof of this, you haven't provided any
> so far.
Well, neither have you. It's not that sort of discussion, where footnotes
are compulsory.
My statement about the punishment is based on observation of what goes on.
In almost every jurisdiction, time off for good behavior is one week for
two. IOW, for every two weeks the inmate fails to seriously break the rules,
he gets a one week cut.
Duke of URL
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:51:26 +0000, Bryn
> <br...@GREMILNSfinhall.demon.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>>OK!
>> A slice of pizza then!
>>Three strikes and you're banged up ?
>>
>>
>>Google says:
>>
>>3 Strikes (2000): Brian Hooks, N'Bushe Wright, E-40, David Alan ...
>>... well with the movie's specific target, the three strikes law ... a
>>crime as petty as
>>stealing a slice of pizza ... At times, 3 Strikes presents a clever
>>caricature of a ...
>>
>>http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/t/three-strikes.shtml
> (remainder URL's for same case snipped)
>
> Hi Bryn.
>
> I absolutely abhore the 'three strikes' laws and would like to see
> them struck from the books. Why they were deemed necessary is a whole
> 'nother subject, but whatever justification drove them, the results
> are frequently unjust.
>
> However, if I allow you to substitute pizza for bread, there'll be no
> topping the thread drift.
Bah! Get back on topic: Breadstick control! These evil appurtenances must be
restricted to only those who are required to use them, just like chopstix.
Ian Morrison
You don't need (!) a bread machine, just an oven. I make my own bread to
suit me. I even use flour from the family millers - Hutchisons of
Kirkcaldy (my great-grandmother was a Fife Hutchison/Hutcheson).
I find the whole process somewhat miraculous, and very relaxing. Like
chopping wood, it is an excellent way to dissipate anger. If more people
made their own bread, and chopped their own firewood, there might be
less hatred and violence in the world.
Of course there would also be a lot less opportunity for exploitation
and profit of ordinary people, such as you and I, by the capitalist
overlords.
------
Ian O.
Séimí mac Liam
news:9b3c21hstfke26d92...@4ax.com:
How about if they just steal dough?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Cory Bhreckan
>
> "Cory Bhreckan" <CBhr...@maelstrom.com> wrote in message
> news:4225D736...@maelstrom.com...
>
> > I suppose it's usless to ask for proof of this, you haven't provided any
> > so far.
>
> Well, neither have you. It's not that sort of discussion, where footnotes
> are compulsory.
I notice that you snipped the links that I posted. Oh well.
Madra Dubh
I thought you were Cory Bhreckan.
Are you really Ian Morrison in drag?
Cory Bhreckan
So which ones are the weasels? And are those Fascist dogs running?
Madra Dubh
Vicious weasel?
Now where have I read that before?
Bryn
<MacB...@kdsi.net> writes
Make them judges...
Seriously, without the career criminal, the British justice system would
fail completely.
If it were not for the usual suspects cleanup targets could not be met.
And charges would never be brought. However this attention to the
obvious failures of the criminal classes (i.e. re-offenders lacking the
brains to not get caught) enables the truly successful criminal to
prosper undetected until he or she has accrued sufficient funds to enter
politics or the Law. The true objective of the proper criminal mind and
where the really big money can be found...
>
>
--
Bryn
To email remove GREMILNS
Stephen Copinger
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@arac.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:Xns960D8E...@216.196.97.136...<snip>
>> However, if I allow you to substitute pizza for bread, there'll be no
>> topping the thread drift.
>>
>> Stephen
>
> How about if they just steal dough?
>
Séimí mac Liam
news:42263fb8$0$2657$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net:
Don't get saucy, young man.
Séimí mac Liam
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Wea-sel:
intr.v., -seled also -selled, -sel·ing -sel·ling, -sels -sels.
To be evasive; equivocate.
Ian Morrison
> Don't get saucy, young man.
I have a deep crust of the kind of topic that just mushrooms. Everyone
just starts playing the same old tuna. Before we know where we are, we
are peppered with cheesy sentiments.
------
Ian O.
Ian Morrison
> Wea-sel:
> intr.v., -seled also -selled, -sel·ing -sel·ling, -sels -sels.
> To be evasive; equivocate.
Rums-feld:
intr.v., -felded also -felled, -feld·ing -fel·ling.
To be evasive; equivocate; torture with semantic change; act like a weasel.
------
Ian O.
MacRobert
<stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> paused to reflect but
wrote anyway:
>
If by any chance you send him a bill for that, don't forget who
provided the straight line, ahem ahem. However, since so far we may
only speculate about his meaning, wouldn't that criminal go to prison
for three burglaries (assuming felonious act, not a misdemeanor like
shoplifting), making what he took immaterial?
Does Scotland have the 'three strikes you're out' idiocy, or something
similar?
Stephen
Séimí mac Liam
@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Just because a topic wears thin, doesn't mean you must pan it.
MacRobert
<br...@GREMILNSfinhall.demon.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
Bryn back in the early '70's I read a book describing the
similarities between successful criminals and successful businessmen.
Turns out they have much in common, except criminals saw better profit
and more fun in crime... That was the gist of it IIRC. Nothing was
mentioned about administering 'Oil for Food' programs.
Stephen
MacRobert
<JackieM...@aol.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
I couldn't find it.
Stephen
MacRobert
<iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>Duke of URL wrote:
>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42258f90$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>
>>
>>>You know Duke - I can't even *buy* decent bread down here (NZ).
>>
>>
>> ??? Why in the world not?
>> Have you considered buying a bread-machine? I see a lot of really nice ones
>> on eBay & so on. Then you can make it exactly to suit you.
>
>You don't need (!) a bread machine, just an oven. I make my own bread to
>suit me. I even use flour from the family millers - Hutchisons of
>Kirkcaldy (my great-grandmother was a Fife Hutchison/Hutcheson).
You have an oven? Luxury! We have to steal it two times but never
thrice...
>
>I find the whole process somewhat miraculous, and very relaxing. Like
>chopping wood, it is an excellent way to dissipate anger. If more people
>made their own bread, and chopped their own firewood, there might be
>less hatred and violence in the world.
What on earth d'you have to be angry about and why do you hate the
forests so much?
>
>Of course there would also be a lot less opportunity for exploitation
>and profit of ordinary people, such as you and I, by the capitalist
>overlords.
Oh, them. Well, they'd move quickly to control the oven market so
we'd all be right back at square one. Then what would you do, drill
an oil well? You have to think yer revolutions through first, man.
MacR
>
>------
>Ian O.
Séimí mac Liam
news:n3oc21psal40vr1rr...@4ax.com:
Not here: http://www.ccadp.org/california.htm either.
Séimí mac Liam
news:3koc21lhhpb7nk6bf...@4ax.com:
> Oh, them.
Everyone must do something. WE can't all be e-bay mogols.
Cory Bhreckan
>
> MacRobert <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in
> news:3koc21lhhpb7nk6bf...@4ax.com:
>
> > Oh, them.
>
> Everyone must do something. WE can't all be e-bay mogols.
I have heard that e-bay is the trailer park of capitalism.
I don't make up rumours, I only spread them.
Cory Bhreckan
I read in the newspaper that in the version of the new movie "Sideways"
that is distributed for viewing while flying, the word "Ashcroft" was
dubbed in in place of a**hole. I found that rather fitting.
Duke of URL
news:DGpVd.182229$68.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ah, but then the tree-huggers would be after us!
Duke of URL
> MacRobert <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in
> news:3koc21lhhpb7nk6bf...@4ax.com:
>
>> Oh, them.
>
> Everyone must do something. WE can't all be e-bay mogols.
>
Duke of URL
Ah so...
Duke of URL
Oh of course. If they aren't running, they have to be yellow.
Weasels, weasels... hmm...
Lesley Robertson
"Ian Morrison" <iomor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DGpVd.182229$68.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> suit me. I even use flour from the family millers - Hutchisons of
> Kirkcaldy (my great-grandmother was a Fife Hutchison/Hutcheson).
I do both - if I have the time, I make it by hand, but sometimes on a
Saturday I'll switch the bread machine on and then head out to the shops. On
a cold, miserable day, there's something very special about coming home to
the smell of bread baking...
Lesley Robertson
Stephen Copinger
"MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:32:45 -0000, "Stephen Copinger"
> <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> paused to reflect but
> wrote anyway:
> Does Scotland have the 'three strikes you're out' idiocy, or something
> similar?
>
importing them from aboard.
You can broadly divide most of the criminal population into a number of
groups:
1. Ignorant/Stupid youngsters
2. Career criminals
3. Those who made a stupid mistake.
4. Political offenders.
5. Mentally ill.
Group 1 we see a lot of. They tend to be regular clients for a few years,
then grow out of it (usually when they find a steady relationship, start
having a family etc). The type of offence varies, but tends to be the same
sort of thing repeatedly. In this part of the world they tend to be road
traffic offences or alcohol related agression. In the central belt you also
get more of those for whom it will be shoplifting, housebreaking, or drugs.
Generally if they have not stopped by early to mid 30's, they will have
shifted into category 2.
Group 2 are much rarer. These are the ones for whom their illegal activities
provide an income/lifestyle, and conviction is an occupational hazard.
Frequently they started off in deprived backgrounds, but not always. Also
the edges blur with those who are in "legitimate" business but will go along
with things that are borderline (cutting corners on those safety
regulations, threaten your competitors a little, etc.)
Group 3 are those who on the spur of the moment do something, and when they
get caught (or even before sometimes) go "why on earth did I do that". It
can cover everything from road traffic to murder. Probably more population
in total than career criminals, but less business for lawyers since each one
will usually only have the one incident.
Group 4 are those who know what they are doing is against the law but do it
in protest against that law. While some are pretty obvious (civil
disobedience), there are also those who appear to be in group 2 who are
really in this category (eg. some cannibis dealers).
Group 5 are those who arguably should be in a hospital, or at least getting
some form of treatment. The ones that get the big publicity are those who do
something particularly noticeable like murder, but an awful lot of "petty"
crime is committed by this category.
So, with that said, who is going to be hit by "Three strikes and you're
out"? Basically everyone except group 3. Now Group 1 would have grown out of
it, except they won't if they are jailed for life; if somehow they do get
back out they will have no connection to their previous peers, but will have
connection with criminals, so will probably end up in group 2.
Group 4 are followers of their conscience, knowing what the state provides
for their actions, and history shows that _in extremis_ you will get people
in this category who will die for their beliefs; all it will do is change
strategies not actually affect crime figures significantly.
Group 5 are going to be locked up for life in place of getting medical
treatment. While historically this has been a common method of dealing with
such people, that was before the invention of modern treatments so there are
certainly moral questions raised there.
mac...@eircom.net
Duke of URL wrote:
> <mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:1109761659.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Also bear in mind that the death penalty apologists always cite
> > deterrent as their justification. It always seemed strange, that
one.
>
> Why do you say "always"? I and many other death-penalty supporters
consider
> it punishment, not deterrent.
So you punish people who have killed by killing them? Sensible! What
about the mistakes? If you were on a jury that mistakenly sent a person
to their death, shouldn't you then be punished?
>
> > What's also strange is that the majority of apologists cite
themselves
> > as religious! They will not actually admit that they see the death
> > penalty is nothing but revenge.
>
> That is a non-sequitur. My religion has a commandent: Thou Shalt Not
Do
> Murder.
> Further, so what if it's revenge. You say that like it's a bad thing.
Revenge IS a bad thing! It's all consuming! Where in your commanments
does it say that revenge is a right? The death penalty is a bad thing
because it's indiscriminate. Once the sentence is carried out, there is
no appeal, even if the person is innocent. God help you if you're ever
in the wrong place at the wrong time and can't afford a fancy lawyer.
Mike
Lesley Robertson
<mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1109849093.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Duke of URL wrote:
>>
>> That is a non-sequitur. My religion has a commandent: Thou Shalt Not
> Do
>> Murder.
>> Further, so what if it's revenge. You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> Revenge IS a bad thing! It's all consuming! Where in your commanments
> does it say that revenge is a right? The death penalty is a bad thing
> because it's indiscriminate. Once the sentence is carried out, there is
> no appeal, even if the person is innocent. God help you if you're ever
> in the wrong place at the wrong time and can't afford a fancy lawyer.
>
I've read the book!
Lesley Robertson
Madra Dubh
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@arac.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> "Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:R2rVd.313337$w62.23114
> @bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>> "Cory Bhreckan" <CBhr...@maelstrom.com> wrote in message
>> news:42263A25...@maelstrom.com...
>>> Duke of URL wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Cory Bhreckan" <CBhr...@maelstrom.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4225D99D...@maelstrom.com...
>>>>
>>>> > Would those be Socialist vultures?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. You really MUST keep up with your Politicalanimal Studies!
>>>> It's
>>>> Socialist vultures, Commie rats, Fascist dogs & Capitalist wolves.
>>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>>> So which ones are the weasels? And are those Fascist dogs running?
>>
>> Vicious weasel?
>> Now where have I read that before?
>
> Wea-sel:
> intr.v., -seled also -selled, -sel·ing -sel·ling, -sels -sels.
> To be evasive; equivocate.
Yep, that describes the wooly haired old Socialist fart to a "T".
Madra Dubh
Yep, that describers the wooly haired old Scottish Socialist fart to a "T".
Madra Dubh
"T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tnnurseNOUCE99-8CC...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
> In article <1109849093.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "mac...@eircom.net" <mac...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Duke of URL wrote:
>> > <mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1109761659.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > > Also bear in mind that the death penalty apologists always cite
>> > > deterrent as their justification. It always seemed strange, that
>> one.
>> >
>> > Why do you say "always"? I and many other death-penalty supporters
>> consider
>> > it punishment, not deterrent.
>>
>> So you punish people who have killed by killing them? Sensible! What
>> about the mistakes? If you were on a jury that mistakenly sent a person
>> to their death, shouldn't you then be punished?
>
> executed the wrong guy.
What is the Scottish record in this regard?
<Snip>
Duke of URL
news:1109849093.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Duke of URL wrote:
>> <mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:1109761659.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Also bear in mind that the death penalty apologists always cite
>> > deterrent as their justification. It always seemed strange, that
> one.
>>
>> Why do you say "always"? I and many other death-penalty supporters
> consider
>> it punishment, not deterrent.
>
> So you punish people who have killed by killing them? Sensible! What
> about the mistakes? If you were on a jury that mistakenly sent a person
> to their death, shouldn't you then be punished?
You're veering off into a whole new topic: How Do We Properly Limit
Executions To Those There Is Absolutely No Doubt Comitted Deliberate Murder.
>
> > What's also strange is that the majority of apologists cite
> themselves
>> > as religious! They will not actually admit that they see the death
>> > penalty is nothing but revenge.
>>
>> That is a non-sequitur. My religion has a commandent: Thou Shalt Not
> Do Murder.
>> Further, so what if it's revenge. You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> Revenge IS a bad thing!
Only in your humble opinion.
> It's all consuming!
Only to obsessive personalities.
> Where in your commanments
> does it say that revenge is a right?
Punishment for crimes is not a "right", it's a requirement. Try reading the
Bible or Veda or Koran or...
> The death penalty is a bad thing
> because it's indiscriminate.
Not at all; it's very specifically discriminate. Go read your dictionary,
old chap.
>Once the sentence is carried out, there is
> no appeal, even if the person is innocent. God help you if you're ever
> in the wrong place at the wrong time and can't afford a fancy lawyer.
Been there, done that, got the blue jumpsuit...
BTW, what screwy place do you live where murder convictions aren't
automatically appealed? Every USA jurisdiction requires that.
Duke of URL
news:3c197$4226f4af$82a1f636$21...@news1.tudelft.nl...
translation.
Duke of URL
news:tnnurseNOUCE99-8CC...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
> The bit that says 'An eye for an eye..". Mind you, the same bit also says
sigh ... Y'know, this is a common error that happens to really gripe me.
The rule "An eye for an eye, a limb for a limb" was a major humanitarian
change. Previously, the rule was "Death for an eye, death for a limb". Being
a "doctor" was really hazardous when you expected to be killed by the family
of someone you tried to heal and couldn't.
mac...@eircom.net
Was 'an eye for an eye' not Hamurabbi's law? Wasn't he the king of
Phoenecia or somewhere like that? Was this law incorporated into the
Torah and Bible?
It may have been a major step forward, but that was then and this is
now. I'm amazed at how some people want to quote laws from eons ago
while still enjoying the fruits and culture of the modern age. There
again, who ever said religion was logical?
Mike
mac...@eircom.net
T N Nurse wrote:
> In article <1109849093.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "mac...@eircom.net" <mac...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > > <mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1109761659.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > Also bear in mind that the death penalty apologists always cite
> > > > deterrent as their justification. It always seemed strange,
that
> > one.
> > >
> > > Why do you say "always"? I and many other death-penalty
supporters
> > consider
> > > it punishment, not deterrent.
> >
> > So you punish people who have killed by killing them? Sensible!
What
> > about the mistakes? If you were on a jury that mistakenly sent a
person
> > to their death, shouldn't you then be punished?
>
never
> executed the wrong guy.
>
> > >
> > themselves
> > > > as religious! They will not actually admit that they see the
death
> > > > penalty is nothing but revenge.
> > >
> > > That is a non-sequitur. My religion has a commandent: Thou Shalt
Not
> > Do
> > > Murder.
> > > Further, so what if it's revenge. You say that like it's a bad
thing.
> >
> > Revenge IS a bad thing! It's all consuming! Where in your
commanments
> > does it say that revenge is a right?
>
says
> well as stoning gays to death.
>
> > The death penalty is a bad thing
> > because it's indiscriminate.
>
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the New Testament is not
available in the US.
M
Michilín
wrote:
>"MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
>news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com...
>> On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
>> reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>>>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
>>>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
>>>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>>>loaves of bread.
>>
>> Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
>> stealing three loaves of bread.
>>
>Of course he won't because there are none.
>The significant result of this hare-brained decision will be more
>professional teen-age murderers, safe in the knowledge that they won't be
>executed, indeed, they won't even be kept behind bars past age 25 (21 in
>some cases). I listened today to a long-term NYPD Homicide Detective explain
>that it's already normal for the drug-dealers to have a 14- or 15-yo off a
>competitor; they rarely get tried for Capital Murder and even more rarely in
>NY will get a death penalty. The dealer promises to look after the killer's
>family (if he has one) and the kid takes the rap, all proud of himself.
>The gentleman explained that far more of these contract child-killers are
>now expected to show up.
>Ah yes, isn't it wonderful the way the Men In Black make their decisions...
>
>
Well, it's nice to see the first traces of human decency appearing if
nothing else.
Michilín
Stephen Copinger
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:112eb25...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> BTW, what screwy place do you live where murder convictions aren't
> automatically appealed? Every USA jurisdiction requires that.
From Scottish Executive statistics
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00205-09.asp
Number of Murder convictions 1992-2001: 215
Number of Appeals: 100
Number of convictions quashed: 4
Number of retrials ordered: 3
Michilín
wrote:
>"Cory Bhreckan" <CBhr...@maelstrom.com> wrote in message
>news:42251FD8...@maelstrom.com...
>> Children lack the long range thought capabilities (in most cases). When
>> I was a teenager I thought I was invincible, most adolescents do. Why
>> else would they be so easy to recruit into the armed forces of the
>> world?
>>
>Are you seriously telling me that when you were 13, you didn't know it was
>not only wrong, but evil, to kill another person in order to rob him? C'mon
>now.
Well, apparently large numbers of children in your country seem to
think that it is okay. How can a country which boasts of having the
finest educational system in the world and a code of morality which
rushes to punish people who commit crimes not approved by the
Administration, produce children who murder for money?
The point you're so carefully skating round of course is not that
children are prepared to commit crimes, but the fact that your
country's original decision to murder anything that got in its way,
from British soldiers to native Americans, Mexicans, Blacks, and more
recently, Vietnamese and Iraqis, has trickled down to become part of
your national culture, which is why you and a couple of other rogue
states have the unique distinction of being the last hold-outs for
legally killing people for crimes they committed as children.
Why don't you now suggest that these children are confined to the
Black and Latino communities (which I don't believe they are) so that
we can toss the race card into this mix of perverted Christianity and
rule by the gun that you call the American Way of Life?
Michilín
Michilín
<gwy...@arac.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>MacRobert <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in
>news:ne1a21lj7h8e2u8qp...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 1 Mar 2005 14:36:45 -0800, braven...@postmaster.co.uk paused to
>> reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>>>Starts climb into 19th century. Maybe. They've still got more pople in
>>>prison, and more convicts on death row than any other country per
>>>capita. You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>>>loaves of bread.
>>
>> Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
>> stealing three loaves of bread.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>
>Jeex. I leave you guys alone for just a few minutes(oh, has it been several
>days? Well, any way) and look what I come back to.
><tap,tap,tap>
<tap,tap,tap>?
How interesting that you should use Sleazieflake's call sign...
>--
>Saint Séimí mac Liam
>Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
>Prophet of The Great Tagger
>Canonized December '99
Michilín
Séimí mac Liam
Get real Micheil, and don't start this up again.
Séimí mac Liam
news:4227381d$0$2651$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net:
Ah but then you've only 5.5M peeps to worry about don't you?
Michilín
<grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><braven...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1109716604.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> You can go to prison for life in California if you steal three
>> loaves of bread.
>
>Hey.
>Don't steal three loaves of bread and you've got nothing to worry about.
>
>A W-S
>
>
By God, I've finally understood why Jesus got crucified - he was a
five-loaf thief!
Miracle indeed - I wonder how many other Jews got away with that
explanation of how someone else's shekels ended up their pockets.
Michilín
Madra Dubh
> In article <b%EVd.96908$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> What's the American record in this regard?
No where near the mark you just and honorable people have established.
As a percent to total population this enviable record of absolute perfection
in such matters is astounding.
Not that you Scots would EVER admit to a mistake....................
"In the last 40 years they have never executed the wrong man."
You guys really believe we will swallow anything you dish out.
But wait!
How long has capital punishment been outlawed in Scotland?
(You are a sneaky bastard, you know?)
Madra Dubh
Hear, hear!!!
Madra Dubh
<mac...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1109865326.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'll just add that to the list of other stupidities I've seen posted here
about my country.................
Stephen Copinger
"Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VhHVd.97269$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
>>> And of course the Commandment is "Thou shalt not kill".
>>> I've read the book!
>>> Lesley Robertson
>>>
>> No, it's not - read the original, not some deriviative erroneous
>> translation.
>
> Hear, hear!!!
>
Hey guys, there's another slab under the first two, and you'll never guess
what the next five rules say...
Séimí mac Liam
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> No, it's not - read the original, not some deriviative erroneous
>> translation.
>
> Hear, hear!!!
>
Only if read aloud.
Madra Dubh
> In article <KgHVd.97266$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Well, no, that is not what I said.
And here I thought you plain speaking Scots prided yourselves on NEVER
putting words in others mouthes.
>> As a percent to total population this enviable record of absolute
>> perfection
>> in such matters is astounding.
>> Not that you Scots would EVER admit to a mistake....................
>>
>> "In the last 40 years they have never executed the wrong man."
>> You guys really believe we will swallow anything you dish out.
>
> It's a simple fact. Easily checkable.
>
>> But wait!
>> How long has capital punishment been outlawed in Scotland?
>> (You are a sneaky bastard, you know?)
>
> 40 years. Why?
Why indeed?
(Yet another example of the crafty Scot in action)
Madra Dubh
>
> "Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:VhHVd.97269$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <snip>
>>>> And of course the Commandment is "Thou shalt not kill".
>>>> I've read the book!
>>>> Lesley Robertson
>>>>
>>> No, it's not - read the original, not some deriviative erroneous
>>> translation.
>>
>> Hear, hear!!!
>>
> <clunk />
> Hey guys, there's another slab under the first two, and you'll never guess
> what the next five rules say...
We wait with breathless anticipation.................................
(And I don't want to read "Mail your tithe to MacRoberts" listed five times)
Madra Dubh
> In article <VhHVd.97269$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
>> news:112eb42...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
>> > news:3c197$4226f4af$82a1f636$21...@news1.tudelft.nl...
>
>> >> I've read the book!
>> >> Lesley Robertson
>> >>
>> > No, it's not - read the original, not some deriviative erroneous
>> > translation.
>>
>> Hear, hear!!!
>
That little trick we all learned from you Scots BTW.
Actually most Hebrew scholars I've read indicate it would be better
translated "Thou shalt not murder".
Remember this was the crowd that would stone you to death for, among other
things, eating Haggis.
And wars were being fought on all sides.
Work out the math here and see if it suits my argument.
Madra Dubh
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@arac.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:Xns960E65...@216.196.97.136...
> "Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:VhHVd.97269$Th1.32678
> @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>> No, it's not - read the original, not some deriviative erroneous
>>> translation.
>>
>> Hear, hear!!!
>>
>
> Only if read aloud.
Oral transmission is acceptable, is it not?
The Real Fifeshire Bimbo
> Actually most Hebrew scholars I've read indicate it
> would be better translated "Thou shalt not murder".
> Remember this was the crowd that would stone you
> to death for, among other things, eating Haggis.
No! no! Madra. It was for eating grits:)
> And wars were being fought on all sides.
> Work out the math here and see if it suits my argument.
--
Cheers, Helen
hramsay at cogeco dot ca
Stephen Copinger
would involve a breach of the Fourteenth Commandment. So until you can get
over here to read the original, well that's the way it goes.
Cory Bhreckan
>
> "MacRobert" <Cann...@rsed2look.itup> wrote in message
> news:8jmc21905d87gf49c...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:32:45 -0000, "Stephen Copinger"
> > <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> paused to reflect but
> > wrote anyway:
> <snip>
> > Does Scotland have the 'three strikes you're out' idiocy, or something
> > similar?
> >
> No, Scotland manages quite well inventing its own idiocies in law without
> importing them from aboard.
>
> You can broadly divide most of the criminal population into a number of
> groups:
> 1. Ignorant/Stupid youngsters
> 2. Career criminals
> 3. Those who made a stupid mistake.
> 4. Political offenders.
> 5. Mentally ill.
>
> Group 1 we see a lot of. They tend to be regular clients for a few years,
> then grow out of it (usually when they find a steady relationship, start
> having a family etc). The type of offence varies, but tends to be the same
> sort of thing repeatedly. In this part of the world they tend to be road
> traffic offences or alcohol related agression. In the central belt you also
> get more of those for whom it will be shoplifting, housebreaking, or drugs.
> Generally if they have not stopped by early to mid 30's, they will have
> shifted into category 2.
>
> Group 2 are much rarer. These are the ones for whom their illegal activities
> provide an income/lifestyle, and conviction is an occupational hazard.
> Frequently they started off in deprived backgrounds, but not always. Also
> the edges blur with those who are in "legitimate" business but will go along
> with things that are borderline (cutting corners on those safety
> regulations, threaten your competitors a little, etc.)
>
> Group 3 are those who on the spur of the moment do something, and when they
> get caught (or even before sometimes) go "why on earth did I do that". It
> can cover everything from road traffic to murder. Probably more population
> in total than career criminals, but less business for lawyers since each one
> will usually only have the one incident.
>
> Group 4 are those who know what they are doing is against the law but do it
> in protest against that law. While some are pretty obvious (civil
> disobedience), there are also those who appear to be in group 2 who are
> really in this category (eg. some cannibis dealers).
>
> Group 5 are those who arguably should be in a hospital, or at least getting
> some form of treatment. The ones that get the big publicity are those who do
> something particularly noticeable like murder, but an awful lot of "petty"
> crime is committed by this category.
>
> So, with that said, who is going to be hit by "Three strikes and you're
> out"? Basically everyone except group 3. Now Group 1 would have grown out of
> it, except they won't if they are jailed for life; if somehow they do get
> back out they will have no connection to their previous peers, but will have
> connection with criminals, so will probably end up in group 2.
> Group 4 are followers of their conscience, knowing what the state provides
> for their actions, and history shows that _in extremis_ you will get people
> in this category who will die for their beliefs; all it will do is change
> strategies not actually affect crime figures significantly.
> Group 5 are going to be locked up for life in place of getting medical
> treatment. While historically this has been a common method of dealing with
> such people, that was before the invention of modern treatments so there are
> certainly moral questions raised there.
>
> Beannachd leibh
> Stephen
> --
> This is a personal email, which does not necessarily express the views or
> position of Highland Law Practice.
This was quite insightful
thank you Stephen
MacRobert
<CBhr...@maelstrom.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
Agreed. Actually, there isn't much else to add against "three
strikes" laws except to ask: How many jails must we build before
*everyone* is in them?
Stephen Hamilton
MacRobert
>
>"Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:UuIVd.97480$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "Stephen Copinger" <stephen....@highlandlaw.bounce.co.uk> wrote in
>>> Hey guys, there's another slab under the first two, and you'll never
>>> guess what the next five rules say...
>>
>> We wait with breathless anticipation.................................
>> (And I don't want to read "Mail your tithe to MacRoberts" listed five
>> times)
>>
Really, it only needed to be written once, just like the others.
>Unfortunately, while I'd otherwise be more than happy to tell you, that
>would involve a breach of the Fourteenth Commandment. So until you can get
>over here to read the original, well that's the way it goes.
Hey! This one says "pump out regularly" (but it is in Original
Greek)!
MacRobert
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Bryn" <br...@GREMILNSfinhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message .
> >Cite one person who has gone to prison for life in California for
> >stealing three loaves of bread.
> >
> >Stephen
>
> OK!
> A slice of pizza then!
Serves the bastard right.
I've always bobbed and weaved on the margins but, as Dylan said; "To live
outside the law you must be honest".
The moral of the story is; 'don't steal pizza'
Got that?
A W-S