|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 2, 2011 8:09:43 GMT -6
if thy hand offends thee, lop it off.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 2, 2011 8:11:38 GMT -6
Ladies, there are machines or handheld devices that could do the judicial penetration. Another man's *deleted* would not be required for this proposal. The scumbag deserves to be raped. What you're proposing isn't rape. I'll bet it come pretty close. ;D
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 8:25:36 GMT -6
The scumbag deserves to be raped. What you're proposing isn't rape. I'll bet it come pretty close. ;D You tell me.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 10:22:31 GMT -6
Because the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing any harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones. Yes I see. So if a murderer killed my sister then, in the interests of justice, society should kill his sister. Sure, it's hard on her, but the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing any harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones. The sister has her own right to life. I'll qualify my statement by saying that the interests of family members count only insofar as any punishment might deprive them of life, liberty, limb, or property without due process (substantive and procedural) of law.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 10:26:55 GMT -6
No. That would be a due process problem, for one. You can't deprive someone of life or liberty without due process. I think you already know the answers to these questions. No I don't. The text of the fifth says: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. But that's all about when you commit a crime. It doesn't stop the state from killing non-criminals arbitrarily. The 14th meanwhile, says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But limbs are not property, as you have argued, and anyway, if the state decides to kill gays, "due process" would just amount to proving they were gay. no? Substantive (as opposed to procedural) due process would say that killing gays for being gay is unconstitutional. www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Substantive%20Due%20Process.htm "Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " The facially clear meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial, based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural or "process" rights.
However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 2, 2011 10:27:28 GMT -6
I'll bet it come pretty close. ;D You tell me. I just did. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 10:44:55 GMT -6
Well then it looks like we have our rapist. Problem solved. But as I said earlier, the rape has to be part of a prison sentence. I am not in favor of raping the prisoner and turning him loose into the community. And for what its worth, executing a murderer still does not result in perfect justice. As Donnie teaches, even in the event of an execution, the murderer still has an advantage over the victim. Same analysis would probably apply to rape, albeit to a lesser degree. Actually, with rape, we can have them raped multiple times, reducing the 'advantage' every time. Sooner or later, the state would find justice. I'm not so sure. No matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage because it was the murderer's rapist's choice to initiate the raping process. During the sodomy, the POS will know why he is being cornholed, and that he his being penetrated because of his own unlawful actions. The victim, on the other hand, was simply a victim of another's criminal act. She was essentially powerless to avoid the situation, and she did nothing to deserve what happened.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 2, 2011 11:38:17 GMT -6
Actually, with rape, we can have them raped multiple times, reducing the 'advantage' every time. Sooner or later, the state would find justice. I'm not so sure. No matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage because it was the murderer's choice to initiate the raping process. During the sodomy, the POS will know why he is being cornholed, and that he his being penetrated because of his own unlawful actions. The victim, on the other hand, was simply a victim of another's criminal act. She was essentially powerless to avoid the situation, and she did nothing to deserve what happened. So True" no matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 13:01:11 GMT -6
Actually, with rape, we can have them raped multiple times, reducing the 'advantage' every time. Sooner or later, the state would find justice. I'm not so sure. No matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage because it was the murderer's choice to initiate the raping process. During the sodomy, the POS will know why he is being cornholed, and that he his being penetrated because of his own unlawful actions. The victim, on the other hand, was simply a victim of another's criminal act. She was essentially powerless to avoid the situation, and she did nothing to deserve what happened. Been following the conversation... and would just like to know when ya'll went from raping rapists to raping murderers? (or was that a misthought?)
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 13:08:59 GMT -6
I'm not so sure. No matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage because it was the murderer's choice to initiate the raping process. During the sodomy, the POS will know why he is being cornholed, and that he his being penetrated because of his own unlawful actions. The victim, on the other hand, was simply a victim of another's criminal act. She was essentially powerless to avoid the situation, and she did nothing to deserve what happened. Been following the conversation... and would just like to know when ya'll went from raping rapists to raping murderers? (or was that a misthought?) Lol. Yeah, that was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 17:09:05 GMT -6
Yes I see. So if a murderer killed my sister then, in the interests of justice, society should kill his sister. Sure, it's hard on her, but the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing any harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones. The sister has her own right to life. I'll qualify my statement by saying that the interests of family members count only insofar as any punishment might deprive them of life, liberty, limb, or property without due process (substantive and procedural) of law. The right to life only protects you from the government taking your life "without appropriate governmental justification", according to the text you cited. But isn't 'justice' an appropriate governmental justification? As you said "the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing ANY harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones." My emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 17:12:41 GMT -6
Actually, with rape, we can have them raped multiple times, reducing the 'advantage' every time. Sooner or later, the state would find justice. I'm not so sure. No matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage because it was the murderer's rapist's choice to initiate the raping process. During the sodomy, the POS will know why he is being cornholed, and that he his being penetrated because of his own unlawful actions. The victim, on the other hand, was simply a victim of another's criminal act. She was essentially powerless to avoid the situation, and she did nothing to deserve what happened. By that logic, if you clip my ear unexpectedly and without provocation, I am warranted in clipping your ear over and over and over again without mercy. I don't see any room for proportionality of sentencing on your philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 17:12:43 GMT -6
The sister has her own right to life. I'll qualify my statement by saying that the interests of family members count only insofar as any punishment might deprive them of life, liberty, limb, or property without due process (substantive and procedural) of law. The right to life only protects you from the government taking your life "without appropriate governmental justification", according to the text you cited. But isn't 'justice' an appropriate governmental justification? As you said "the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing ANY harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones." My emphasis. I amended my prior statement to read "the interests of family members count only insofar as any punishment might deprive them of life, liberty, limb, or property without due process (substantive and procedural) of law."
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 17:18:03 GMT -6
The right to life only protects you from the government taking your life "without appropriate governmental justification", according to the text you cited. But isn't 'justice' an appropriate governmental justification? As you said "the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing ANY harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones." My emphasis. I amended my prior statement to read "the interests of family members count only insofar as any punishment might deprive them of life, liberty, limb, or property without due process (substantive and procedural) of law." You misunderstand. There WOULD be due process (substantial and procedural) of law. Remember that due process only protects her from having her life taken 'without appropriate governmental justification". But the government has appropriate justification. Taking her life is necessary in order to punish the creep for depriving others of their family members. Justice is the appropriate justification. Can there be a MORE appropriate justification?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 17:18:19 GMT -6
The sister has her own right to life. I'll qualify my statement by saying that the interests of family members count only insofar as any punishment might deprive them of life, liberty, limb, or property without due process (substantive and procedural) of law. But isn't 'justice' an appropriate governmental justification? I would say no. "Justice" has its limits. We can juice a perp, but juicing his family members would go too far because they have a right to life and their right to not be killed by the state trumps getting back at the POS. It's hard to imagine how the Founding Fathers would have wanted to create a system of liberty where a man could be executed for the sins of his loved ones.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 17:27:05 GMT -6
I'm not so sure. No matter what we do to the POS, he retains the advantage because it was the murderer's rapist's choice to initiate the raping process. During the sodomy, the POS will know why he is being cornholed, and that he his being penetrated because of his own unlawful actions. The victim, on the other hand, was simply a victim of anther's criminal act. She was essentially powerless to avoid the situation, and she did nothing to deserve what happened. By that logic, if you clip my ear unexpectedly and without provocation, I am warranted in clipping your ear over and over and over again without mercy. I don't see any room for proportionality of sentencing on your philosophy. I never said we should rape the guy in perpetuity. I'm just saying that the POS would still have an advantage over the victim insofar as the POS started the cycle of rape against the victim's consent. No matter how many times we rape the scumbag, the victim, I imagine, would still be damaged and most likely would have preferred to have not been raped. Donnie says it better, but basically, the perp got what he wanted, and the victim did not get what she wanted, even though the victim was entitled to get what she wanted and the perp was not entitled to take what he wanted. Also, the damage you would suffer by getting your ear clipped would be inconsequential to what a rape victim suffers. My comment above was not meant to be some comprehensive theory of punishment.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 17:43:58 GMT -6
But isn't 'justice' an appropriate governmental justification? I would say no. "Justice" has its limits. We can juice a perp, but juicing his family members would go too far because they have a right to life Now you are arguing in a circle. "They can't be killed because they have a right to life."
"Ah but their right to life is only a right not to be killed without justification. Isn't justice justification?"
"No, because they have a right to life." Alright then, in that case: "Ah but their right to life is only a right not to be killed without justification. Isn't justice justification?" So their right to life trumps getting back at the POS, but his right to life does not. And their interest in not being bereaved counts for nothing. This is all backwards reasoning. You want the DP but not other, harsher, forms of justice, so you hack together cockamamie principles to get what you want. The right to life trumps the right to justice, except when it doesn't, and the right to punish trumps the right not to be bereaved, even though that constitutes the infliction of pain on innocents. Justice makes that ok. Completely arbitrary. Of course nobody wants that. The question is whether you can legitimately argue that 'justice' warrants killing someone when, in the next breath, you claim that the right to life trumps justice. There is a conflict there.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 17:47:15 GMT -6
By that logic, if you clip my ear unexpectedly and without provocation, I am warranted in clipping your ear over and over and over again without mercy. I don't see any room for proportionality of sentencing on your philosophy. I never said we should rape the guy in perpetuity. I'm just saying that the POS would still have an advantage over the victim insofar as the POS started the cycle of rape against the victim's consent. No matter how many times we rape the scumbag, the victim, I imagine, would still be damaged and most likely would have preferred to have not been raped. Donnie says it better, but basically, the perp got what he wanted, and the victim did not get what she wanted, even though the victim was entitled to get what she wanted and the perp was not entitled to take what he wanted. Word play.The POS did not want to rape and get caught. He wanted to rape and get away with it. So he didn't get what he wanted after all. Advantage annulled. This is the problem. None of your principles have anything approaching universality. They are all of the form "It's like this, except when it isn't".
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 18:07:39 GMT -6
I would say no. "Justice" has its limits. We can juice a perp, but juicing his family members would go too far because they have a right to life Now you are arguing in a circle. "They can't be killed because they have a right to life."
"Ah but their right to life is only a right not to be killed without justification. Isn't justice justification?"
"No, because they have a right to life." Alright then, in that case: "Ah but their right to life is only a right not to be killed without justification. Isn't justice justification?" So their right to life trumps getting back at the POS, but his right to life does not. And their interest in not being bereaved counts for nothing. This is all backwards reasoning. You want the DP but not other, harsher, forms of justice, so you hack together cockamamie principles to get what you want. The right to life trumps the right to justice, except when it doesn't, and the right to punish trumps the right not to be bereaved, even though that constitutes the infliction of pain on innocents. Justice makes that ok. Completely arbitrary. Of course nobody wants that. The question is whether you can legitimately argue that 'justice' warrants killing someone when, in the next breath, you claim that the right to life trumps justice. There is a conflict there. Honky, it seems fundamentally unfair to me to kill a man for something that is not his fault. To do so would lead to all sorts of unjust results. No sane person would want a justice system where he could be killed for something he could not have reasonably prevented. I don't see what is contradictory about saying the state can execute criminals for the crimes they choose to commit but cannot execute people for acts done by others that were not the fault of the person to be juiced. The grief that the relatives of the POS might feel does not count because such grief is not a deprivation of the person's life, liberty, or property. In other words, it's not an objective, tangible harm.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 18:21:19 GMT -6
The grief that the relatives of the POS might feel does not count because such grief is not a deprivation of the person's life, liberty, or property. In other words, it's not an objective, tangible harm. Of course it's a deprivation of liberty. I wish to enjoy life with my family. If you kill my family, you have taken that liberty from me.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 18:23:35 GMT -6
The grief that the relatives of the POS might feel does not count because such grief is not a deprivation of the person's life, liberty, or property. In other words, it's not an objective, tangible harm. Of course it's a deprivation of liberty. I wish to enjoy life with my family. If you kill my family, you have taken that liberty from me. You don't have the liberty to enjoy life with your family if your family leaves you or decides to do some crime that prevents them from being with you. In other words, you would not be deprived of the right because you never had it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 18:26:32 GMT -6
Honky, it seems fundamentally unfair to me to kill a man for something that is not his fault. To do so would lead to all sorts of unjust results. What is unjust about a son for a son? You bereave me, I bereave you. The kid himself is collateral damage, and his blood is on your hands for starting this. Nonsense. A family member for a family member was the way back in the times of blood feuds. Those people were not insane. I agree. The state should not be allowed to punish people for acts done by others. But the killing of the POS's mother is not punishment of her, it is punishment of him. He is being bereaved for the crime of bereaving others. As for her, you can't make a judicial omelet without breaking some judicial eggs, right?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 18:27:20 GMT -6
Of course it's a deprivation of liberty. I wish to enjoy life with my family. If you kill my family, you have taken that liberty from me. You don't have the liberty to enjoy life with your family if your family leaves you I have the right to congregate, even though it depends on others wishing to congregate with me. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 19:14:13 GMT -6
You don't have the liberty to enjoy life with your family if your family leaves you I have the right to congregate, even though it depends on others wishing to congregate with me. What's the difference? You have some valid points. In Procunier v. Martinez, the Court dealt with 1st Amendment rights related to prisoner mail restrictions. Similar to your argument, the Court acknowledged, "The wife of a prison inmate who is not permitted to read all that her husband wanted to say to her has suffered an abridgment of her interest in communicating with him as plain as that which results from censorship of her letter to him. In either event, censorship of prisoner mail works a consequential restriction on the First and Fourteenth Amendments rights of those who are not prisoners."Accordingly, the Court rejected "any attempt to justify censorship of inmate correspondence merely by reference to certain assumptions about the legal status of prisoners." On the other hand, the Court recognized that "interest in the order and security of penal institutions justifies the imposition of certain restraints on inmate correspondence." When balancing the 1st Amendment rights of third parties with the government's penological interests, the Court held that restrictions on prisoner mail are justified if (1) the restriction furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression, and (2) the limitation of First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. Applying a similar reasoning, it appears a mother would have some Constitutional rights to enjoy the company of her son. However, those rights might take a backseat if the deprivation was incidental to furthering the important government interest in juicing the cocksucker.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 20:07:54 GMT -6
Honky, it seems fundamentally unfair to me to kill a man for something that is not his fault. To do so would lead to all sorts of unjust results. What is unjust about a son for a son? You bereave me, I bereave you. The kid himself is collateral damage, and his blood is on your hands for starting this. Nonsense. A family member for a family member was the way back in the times of blood feuds. Those people were not insane. I agree. The state should not be allowed to punish people for acts done by others. But the killing of the POS's mother is not punishment of her, it is punishment of him. He is being bereaved for the crime of bereaving others. As for her, you can't make a judicial omelet without breaking some judicial eggs, right? OK, maybe there is some justice in killing a son for a son. Accordingly, we should weigh the justice in taking the life of the perp's son against the injustice the son would suffer as a result of being killed. As I see it, the magnitude of injustice the son would suffer by being juiced for his father's crime would be greater than the retributive justice that would be achieved by killing him. On the other hand, assuming arguendo that the mother would suffer an injustice as the result of her murdering son's execution, such an injustice would be outweighed by the justice that would be achieved by killing him. Of course, this analysis assumes that the same action can be just to one party while being unjust to another. You might disagree with that assumption.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 21:56:27 GMT -6
I have the right to congregate, even though it depends on others wishing to congregate with me. What's the difference? You have some valid points. In Procunier v. Martinez, the Court dealt with 1st Amendment rights related to prisoner mail restrictions. Similar to your argument, the Court acknowledged, "The wife of a prison inmate who is not permitted to read all that her husband wanted to say to her has suffered an abridgment of her interest in communicating with him as plain as that which results from censorship of her letter to him. In either event, censorship of prisoner mail works a consequential restriction on the First and Fourteenth Amendments rights of those who are not prisoners."Accordingly, the Court rejected "any attempt to justify censorship of inmate correspondence merely by reference to certain assumptions about the legal status of prisoners." On the other hand, the Court recognized that "interest in the order and security of penal institutions justifies the imposition of certain restraints on inmate correspondence." When balancing the 1st Amendment rights of third parties with the government's penological interests, the Court held that restrictions on prisoner mail are justified if (1) the restriction furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression, and (2) the limitation of First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. Applying a similar reasoning, it appears a mother would have some Constitutional rights to enjoy the company of her son. However, those rights might take a backseat if the deprivation was incidental to furthering the important government interest in juicing the cocksucker. Then by the same logic, the mother's right not to be killed might take a backseat if depriving her of her life was incidental to furthering the important government interest in bereaving the cocksucker.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:02:17 GMT -6
What is unjust about a son for a son? You bereave me, I bereave you. The kid himself is collateral damage, and his blood is on your hands for starting this. Nonsense. A family member for a family member was the way back in the times of blood feuds. Those people were not insane. I agree. The state should not be allowed to punish people for acts done by others. But the killing of the POS's mother is not punishment of her, it is punishment of him. He is being bereaved for the crime of bereaving others. As for her, you can't make a judicial omelet without breaking some judicial eggs, right? OK, maybe there is some justice in killing a son for a son. Accordingly, we should weigh the justice in taking the life of the perp's son against the injustice the son would suffer as a result of being killed. As I see it, the magnitude of injustice the son would suffer by being juiced for his father's crime would be greater than the retributive justice that would be achieved by killing him. You keep rattling on about the innocence of the POS's son. THE VICTIMS WERE INNOCENT TOO. Why should his children be granted more fairness than he granted other people's children?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:05:22 GMT -6
You have some valid points. In Procunier v. Martinez, the Court dealt with 1st Amendment rights related to prisoner mail restrictions. Similar to your argument, the Court acknowledged, "The wife of a prison inmate who is not permitted to read all that her husband wanted to say to her has suffered an abridgment of her interest in communicating with him as plain as that which results from censorship of her letter to him. In either event, censorship of prisoner mail works a consequential restriction on the First and Fourteenth Amendments rights of those who are not prisoners."Accordingly, the Court rejected "any attempt to justify censorship of inmate correspondence merely by reference to certain assumptions about the legal status of prisoners." On the other hand, the Court recognized that "interest in the order and security of penal institutions justifies the imposition of certain restraints on inmate correspondence." When balancing the 1st Amendment rights of third parties with the government's penological interests, the Court held that restrictions on prisoner mail are justified if (1) the restriction furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression, and (2) the limitation of First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. Applying a similar reasoning, it appears a mother would have some Constitutional rights to enjoy the company of her son. However, those rights might take a backseat if the deprivation was incidental to furthering the important government interest in juicing the cocksucker. Then by the same logic, the mother's right not to be killed might take a backseat if depriving her of her life was incidental to furthering the important government interest in bereaving the cocksucker. I think the balancing would come out different. Where the right at issue is the mother's own life, I'm not sure her interest in preserving that right could be overcome by the government's interest in punishing her murderous son.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:07:06 GMT -6
Then by the same logic, the mother's right not to be killed might take a backseat if depriving her of her life was incidental to furthering the important government interest in bereaving the cocksucker. I think the balancing would come out different. Where the right at issue is the mother's own life, I'm not sure her interest in preserving that right could be overcome by the government's interest punishing her murderous son. How do you decide these things?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:08:58 GMT -6
Then by the same logic, the mother's right not to be killed might take a backseat if depriving her of her life was incidental to furthering the important government interest in bereaving the cocksucker. I think the balancing would come out different. Where the right at issue is the mother's own life, I'm not sure her interest in preserving that right could be overcome by the government's interest in punishing her murderous son. If the mother says "I'd rather they killed me than killed my son" it follows that she has a greater interest in her son's life than in her own. And since her interest in her own life outweighs the state's interest in killing for justice, her interest in her son's life outweighs it even more.
|
|