Jimmy Buffett discussion
https://www.buffettnews.com/forum/
Exactly.tommcat327 wrote:I'M FINE WITH THAT,BUT THOSE WHO RECIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE KILLED,NOT SIT AROUND FOR 20 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENS.Key Lime Lee wrote: I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?
But who determines who deserves it? You? And what is the criteria? and what's to prevent someone from deciding that YOU deserve to get shot?tommcat327 wrote:I BELIEVE THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOOT THOSE WHO DESERVE IT.THATS ALLKey Lime Lee wrote:Tomm, I think you don't fully understand the consequences of natural law and natural selection. I can't imagine that you honesly believe that you should be able to shoot those who can't shoot you first.
That's a good idea but some inmate would sue and a judge would say it's unconstitutional to take cable TV away from prisoners. That already happened in NY, I think it was in Rikers Island. I think it's pretty sad that law abiding citizens, some of whom probably can't afford cable TV themselves, are having their tax dollars used to pay for it so prisoners can watch HBO.Key Lime Lee wrote:I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?
It's easy to say if you're white and middle class.... but what if you were black and poor? What if you couldn't afford a decent lawyer? What if you were wrongly accused but your state appointed lawyer was so overworked representing everyone else that he didn't really do a decent job?phjrsaunt wrote:Exactly.tommcat327 wrote:I'M FINE WITH THAT,BUT THOSE WHO RECIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE KILLED,NOT SIT AROUND FOR 20 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENS.Key Lime Lee wrote: I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*LIPH wrote:I may be drummed out of the legal profession for this but I believe that if you commit a crime, are arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison you forfeit your rights. If you can't live by the same rules of society that everyone else lives by you don't deserve to have the same rights. Those rights come with responsibilities.
THATS BECAUSE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A JOKE.WHEN SOMEONE GETS SET FREE FOR MURDER,WHICH SEVERAL PEOPLE MAY HAVE WITNESSED,ON A TECHNICALITY BECAUSE EVEIDENCE WASNT SUBMITTED CORRECTLY I THINK WE NEED TO REVAMP THE JUSTICE SYSTEM COMPLETELY.IF IT WORKED DIFFERENTLY I THINK WE COULD BE MORE SURE OF THE CONVICTIONSKey Lime Lee wrote:It's called "checks and balances". When you're talking about killing someone, you need to make damn sure that they really committed the crime because once the "punishment" is enacted, there is no do over.
Considering the amount of errors made in our justice system on a daily basis, the numerous appeals are necessary to ensure that folks sentenced to death actually DID get a fair trial.
I agree - no TV is not "cruel and unusual punishment". I don't see prison as viable punishment - I see it as society protecting itself from those who cannot function within it. I think we need to provide basic services only.LIPH wrote:I may be drummed out of the legal profession for this but I believe that if you commit a crime, are arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison you forfeit your rights. If you can't live by the same rules of society that everyone else lives by you don't deserve to have the same rights. Those rights come with responsibilities.Key Lime Lee wrote:I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?
It's a tough balance to strike to ensure the rights of those accused while at the same time protecting the society. I agree that some of the technicalities seem... silly. But then those technicalities and appeals are there to protect innocent people even if sometimes they're used by those who aren't. Not sure how you protect the innocent without protecting the guilty.tommcat327 wrote:THATS BECAUSE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A JOKE.WHEN SOMEONE GETS SET FREE FOR MURDER,WHICH SEVERAL PEOPLE MAY HAVE WITNESSED,ON A TECHNICALITY BECAUSE EVEIDENCE WASNT SUBMITTED CORRECTLY I THINK WE NEED TO REVAMP THE JUSTICE SYSTEM COMPLETELY.IF IT WORKED DIFFERENTLY I THINK WE COULD BE MORE SURE OF THE CONVICTIONSKey Lime Lee wrote:It's called "checks and balances". When you're talking about killing someone, you need to make damn sure that they really committed the crime because once the "punishment" is enacted, there is no do over.
Considering the amount of errors made in our justice system on a daily basis, the numerous appeals are necessary to ensure that folks sentenced to death actually DID get a fair trial.
YES ME,I THINK I COULD JUDGE PRETTY WELL WHO NEEDS TO BE SHOT.I'M NOT SAYING I COULD REPLACE A COURT SYSTEM BUT I COULD PROBABLY OPEN UP THE PAPER THIS MORNING AND FIND A FEW PRIESTS THAT DO NOT NEED A JUDGE OR JURY TO DECIDE WHAT THEY DID AND IF IT WAS WRONG.THEY NEED ME TO WALK UP TO THEM AND SHOOT THEMKey Lime Lee wrote: But who determines who deserves it? You? And what is the criteria? and what's to prevent someone from deciding that YOU deserve to get shot?
When in doubt I'll just post my POV five times and you'll HAVE to surrender.tommcat327 wrote:EASY THERE LEE
Key Lime Lee wrote:When in doubt I'll just post my POV five times and you'll HAVE to surrender.tommcat327 wrote:EASY THERE LEE
I don't remember, it was a long time ago. I think it was when Ed Koch was mayor.Key Lime Lee wrote:Hey Larry...
Was the ruling on TV based on the "cruel and unusual" clause or something else?