|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 11:18:09 GMT -6
Example of deep seated madnes to me would be what this kid just did in the news, good thing he saved us all by ending his life. I hate to keep using the punks name. I see no names of the victims as usual. Evil...........
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 11:32:57 GMT -6
Example of deep seated madnes to me would be what this kid just did in the news, good thing he saved us all by ending his life. I hate to keep using the punks name. I see no names of the victims as usual. Evil........... Sixteen thousand people are murdered in the U.S. every year, more or less. Shouldn't all the names be published? If they were, would it make any difference in the average time served for murder? I empathize with the folks in Santa Barbara County, who live close to me, when they demand "not one more," but I don't think they're talking about preventing all acts of murder, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 11:37:09 GMT -6
I do not see how that definition gets murderers off the hook.. Execution is not done with any of the above description. The defense bar would love having that definition of malice become the de jure legal standard as well. For instance, take "malice is desire to inflect harm/suffering out of hostile impulse or deep seated madness." How about murders that do not involve hostile impulses? In California we prosecute killer drunk drivers as murderers. Ditto women who do drugs while they're pregnant and kill their children in utero. Under a loose definition of malice, we would not be prosecuting those killers. And what the hell is "deep-seated madness?" What if the "madness" is only temporary? Could you avoid a murder conviction that way? And what is "evil intent?" In California intent is not an element of murder, evil or otherwise. I'm not badgering you, I'm just arguing in favor of the concepts of express and implied malice, which is what we have here. I know you are not badgering me. Women who have abortions are not doing it for evil/malice intent per description reasons the law allows abortions also. In the utero they are not seen as already humans by laws. I see them as humans in my mind though. When a drunk goes out in a car, he has no intent of killing anyone, if the drunk does does it over again he is saying I give two chits about others. Which in my mind intent is now there. The drug addict gets preg, of course the druggie won't care send her to rehab baby to CPS when born. Evil intent is what they plan out to do exactly to kill anyone they want as many as they want or any method they choose. Hell, California does not execute anyone.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 11:42:04 GMT -6
Example of deep seated madnes to me would be what this kid just did in the news, good thing he saved us all by ending his life. I hate to keep using the punks name. I see no names of the victims as usual. Evil........... Sixteen thousand people are murdered in the U.S. every year, more or less. Shouldn't all the names be published? If they were, would it make any difference in the average time served for murder? I empathize with the folks in Santa Barbara County, who live close to me, when they demand "not one more," but I don't think they're talking about preventing all acts of murder, unfortunately. Would have to place more than just names, look in the phone book how many have the same names, dangerous no? Have a solution to that? Place a pic and many people can be mistaken still. Pen pal sites list murderers ads, what has that done? 16 thousand murders by what drunk drivng, gangs, or sober with Malice intent?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 12:01:55 GMT -6
When a drunk goes out in a car, he has no intent of killing anyone, if the drunk does does it over again he is saying I give two chits about others. Which in my mind intent is now there. Still seems soft to me. We have a case of one woman here who is being charged with first degree murder after she drove drunk and killed six people. In California it doesn't matter that she didn't intend to kill anyone and that it was her first offense. The people she killed are just as dead, just as murdered, as the young people slain by that nutter in Isla Vista. The drug addict gets preg, of course the druggie won't care send her to rehab baby to CPS when born. If the baby is born alive, that is. Why shouldn't a drug-addicted mother be charged with murder if she refuses rehab and kills her baby? How is she less of a murderer than Andrea Yates? Evil intent is what they plan out to do exactly to kill anyone they want as many as they want or any method they choose. What if the intent isn't evil? Hell, California does not execute anyone. True, but we wrote the book on true LWOP. Our average time served for murder is the longest of any state, and much longer than the federal government's.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 12:17:12 GMT -6
Would have to place more than just names, look in the phone book how many have the same names, dangerous no? Have a solution to that? I don't offer a solution because I don't see the problem. The public doesn't give a crap about murder victims, and never will. Nor should they have to. The point of criminalizing malicious homicide isn't to cleave to murder victims -- not all victims are sympathetic, and not all murderers inspire antipathy. The point of criminalizing malicious homicide is simply to say it's wrong, morally reprehensible and won't be tolerated. That doesn't need to be determined one case at a time. Or so I once thought, at least. I'm not sure anymore. I often wonder that in the event one of my loved ones is murdered, my fellow citizens, including the bloviating yutzes of this forum, will have the effrontery to ask me if my loved one had it coming.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 12:22:00 GMT -6
When a drunk goes out in a car, he has no intent of killing anyone, if the drunk does does it over again he is saying I give two chits about others. Which in my mind intent is now there. Still seems soft to me. We have a case of one woman here who is being charged with first degree murder after she drove drunk and killed six people. In California it doesn't matter that she didn't intend to kill anyone and that it was her first offense. The people she killed are just as dead, just as murdered, as the young people slain by that nutter in Isla Vista. The drug addict gets preg, of course the druggie won't care send her to rehab baby to CPS when born. If the baby is born alive, that is. Why shouldn't a drug-addicted mother be charged with murder if she refuses rehab and kills her baby? How is she less of a murderer than Andrea Yates? Evil intent is what they plan out to do exactly to kill anyone they want as many as they want or any method they choose. What if the intent isn't evil? Hell, California does not execute anyone. True, but we wrote the book on true LWOP. Our average time served for murder is the longest of any state, and much longer than the federal government's. 1st offense stunningly stupid irresponsible the drunk women, yes we all agree dead is dead. Maybe that women will have the horror of what she did to live with to have so called fun/ or a pity party... she has to live with. Despite that it depends on her now, rehab & what she does with intense counseling. That is not soft or intended to be pic's of the accidents & who they were that died should be in her face thru this to see the human side of what she did. A druggie who is preg? She should have no rights to say she will not go to rehab to begin with, if child is with her & should she make it to the birth the child should be taken by CPS no matter what not her choice now. According to law if child dies the law backs abortion, it is not a human per abortion laws yet. So, how can you charge her for murder? Of what? a fetus? Heck they abortions rips them apart ya know. California is real quiet about what happens inside those wall's, how many murders continue on with murderers there for a natural lifetime, rapes or injury. Attempting from prison to have someone murdered on the outside? Or bringing in contraband? What is the real cost?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 12:33:31 GMT -6
1st offense stunningly stupid irresponsible the drunk women, yes we all agree dead is dead. Maybe that women will have the horror of what she did to live with have so called fun... she has to live with. Maybe she isn't horrified at all. Her conscience obviously didn't keep her from driving drunk. Why should she regret killing anyone? In any case, I want her remorse to take place while her neck is in a noose. Or at least while serving LWOP. According to law if child dies the law backs abortion, it is not a human per abortion laws yet. So, how can you charge her for murder? Of what? a fetus? Heck they abortions rips them apart ya know. And yet in California such a "woman" is indictable for murder, notwithstanding the state's exception for therapeutic abortion. You will recall that Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of capital murder, his unborn child having been deemed a person for purposes of law. California is real quiet about what happens inside those wall's, how many murders continue on with murderers there for a natural lifetime, rapes or injury. Attempting from prison to have someone murdered on the outside? Or bringing in contraband? What is the real cost? That is a question of prison administration, not penology. In any case, states with higher execution rates have the same problems.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 12:42:27 GMT -6
1st offense stunningly stupid irresponsible the drunk women, yes we all agree dead is dead. Maybe that women will have the horror of what she did to live with have so called fun... she has to live with. Maybe she isn't horrified at all. Her conscience obviously didn't keep her from driving drunk. Why should she regret killing anyone? In any case, I want her remorse to take place while her neck is in a noose. Or at least while serving LWOP. According to law if child dies the law backs abortion, it is not a human per abortion laws yet. So, how can you charge her for murder? Of what? a fetus? Heck they abortions rips them apart ya know. And yet in California such a "woman" is indictable for murder, notwithstanding the state's exception for therapeutic abortion. You will recall that Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of capital murder, his unborn child having been deemed a person for purposes of law. California is real quiet about what happens inside those wall's, how many murders continue on with murderers there for a natural lifetime, rapes or injury. Attempting from prison to have someone murdered on the outside? Or bringing in contraband? What is the real cost? That is a question of prison administration, not penology. In any case, states with higher execution rates have the same problems. Yeah, States with higher execution rates get rid of the worse of the worse, who's not maybe" but known to have intent to murder driven to murder even inside those walls. Anti' are trying to save them. Also by California legal process as you stated for examples" are the main reason prison has become big business, incarcerating instead of or in place of rehab, community service even for non violent prison is to automatic. Oh, but the rich celeb's only get that I forgot over there. Which is wasted money going no where.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 12:43:35 GMT -6
Petersons wife was full term even by law not acceptable for abortion.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 13:07:02 GMT -6
Petersons wife was full term even by law not acceptable for abortion. 7.5 months isn't full term, and late term abortions are still legal.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 13:08:10 GMT -6
Would have to place more than just names, look in the phone book how many have the same names, dangerous no? Have a solution to that? I don't offer a solution because I don't see the problem. The public doesn't give a crap about murder victims, and never will. Nor should they have to. The point of criminalizing malicious homicide isn't to cleave to murder victims -- not all victims are sympathetic, and not all murderers inspire antipathy. The point of criminalizing malicious homicide is simply to say it's wrong, morally reprehensible and won't be tolerated. That doesn't need to be determined one case at a time. Or so I once thought, at least. I'm not sure anymore. I often wonder that in the event one of my loved ones is murdered, my fellow citizens, including the bloviating yutzes of this forum, will have the effrontery to ask me if my loved one had it coming. No one has it coming but the killers themselves. Leave the word morals out just leave it at" won't be tolerated." Don't open that can of worms.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 13:10:00 GMT -6
Petersons wife was full term even by law not acceptable for abortion. 7.5 months isn't full term, and late term abortions are still legal. Can't do a legal abortion in TX, at 7.5 months unless the mothers life is confirmed on the line. On the other side of the coin a baby if has to be taken out of the mother can easliy survive with todays technology.,
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 13:13:04 GMT -6
States with higher execution rates get rid of the worse of the worse, who's not maybe" but known to have intent to murder driven to murder even inside those walls. Anti' are trying to save them. So are the alleged "pros." It is laughable to deem those on death row as the "worst of the worst," given how infrequently Texas juries sentence murderers to death. Common sense would tell you hundreds, if not thousands, of murderers who deserve death lucked out and are housed in genpop instead. Also by California legal process as you stated for examples" are the main reason prison has become big business, incarcerating instead of or in place of rehab, community service even for non violent prison is to automatic. Oh, but the rich celeb's only get that I forgot over there. Which is wasted money going no where. I don't believe in rehab or "community service," which is a joke, and neither do most Californians. The "rehabilitation" of a criminal is his problem, not ours.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 13:22:13 GMT -6
States with higher execution rates get rid of the worse of the worse, who's not maybe" but known to have intent to murder driven to murder even inside those walls. Anti' are trying to save them. So are the alleged "pros." It is laughable to deem those on death row as the "worst of the worst," given how infrequently Texas juries sentence murderers to death. Common sense would tell you hundreds, if not thousands, of murderers who deserve death lucked out and are housed in genpop instead. Also by California legal process as you stated for examples" are the main reason prison has become big business, incarcerating instead of or in place of rehab, community service even for non violent prison is to automatic. Oh, but the rich celeb's only get that I forgot over there. Which is wasted money going no where. I don't believe in rehab or "community service," which is a joke, and neither do most Californians. The "rehabilitation" of a criminal is his problem, not ours. Once in prison no not mean't anymore for rehabilitation. That's on them. Don't point the finger at the juries, more like the attny's on both sides first & foremost? There are the worse of the worse murder is murder yet some are so hard wired not ( not maybe for sure) safe to keep them incarcerated even. It is not about the victims or the murderers families. It is about safety of all society including staff inside, other inmates too. As you stated no one deserves to be murdered.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 13:23:27 GMT -6
No one has it coming but the killers themselves. Leave the word morals out just leave it at" won't be tolerated." Don't open that can of worms. No can do. As long as the public is amoral about murder, it will be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 13:25:46 GMT -6
No one has it coming but the killers themselves. Leave the word morals out just leave it at" won't be tolerated." Don't open that can of worms. No can do. As long as the public is amoral about murder, it will be tolerated. Well, I agree but today the word morals is lost to so many. All it does is send them off into another long save the killers azz....
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 13:53:07 GMT -6
I agree but today the word morals is lost to so many. All it does is send them off into another long save the killers azz.... A certain population of women are always going to be attracted to murderers. I think if we regard certain murderers as somehow more deserving of our hatred than others, these women are going to gravitate to those murderers. Maybe it's human nature to compare acts of murder to each other but the requisite criminal act is always the same. A murder is a murder. I don't know why we insist on punishing most murderers lightly and throw the book at so few. Publishing the photographs and circumstances of murder victims is not going to change that, as long as we cleave murder victims into those deserving of some justice and those who deserve more.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 14:33:46 GMT -6
Those women are always going to be attracted to murderers, so do we let them rule? No one is stopping the flood of mail like Peterson for example once incarcerated, I thought mail is a priviledge not a right in prison & overloads staff ? Other countries you cannot find pen pals sites why is that? Or if there is exetremly hard to locate. We have everything set up to let the murderers rule to begin with.
Your right I agree with all your saying, yet what is the solution? If the victims family speaks up for attention it is countered with what about the poor murderers family they already have all the attention, pen pal sites.blogs, every where you go, they want & get all the attention & no one is screaming foul..............
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 3, 2014 14:47:42 GMT -6
Those women are always going to be attracted to murderers, so do we let them rule? No one is stopping the flood of mail like Peterson for example once incarcerated, I thought mail is a priviledge not a right in prison & overloads staff ? Other countries you cannot find pen pals sites why is that? Or if there is exetremly hard to locate. We have everything set up to let the murderers rule to begin with. Your right I agree with all your saying, yet what is the solution? If the victims family speaks up for attention it is countered with what about the poor murderers family they already have all the attention, pen pal sites.blogs, every where you go, they want & get all the attention & no one is screaming foul.............. As far as I know, mail in prison is a right, not a privilege. I can't think of anyone who was permanently denied contact with the outside world. As for the attention accorded murderers, that is going to happen when we turn them into celebrities, and that's going to happen if we punish some much harder than others. I don't think we have that problem in California so much, because murderers here do a lot of time. I just learned that in the Maria Hicks case, the 16-year-old who shot her got 50 years to life, and I have every confidence he'll serve it all. Ms. Hicks was shot to death one mile from where I live, by gangsters who were upset when she told them to stop tagging a fence.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 15:42:27 GMT -6
Those women are always going to be attracted to murderers, so do we let them rule? No one is stopping the flood of mail like Peterson for example once incarcerated, I thought mail is a priviledge not a right in prison & overloads staff ? Other countries you cannot find pen pals sites why is that? Or if there is exetremly hard to locate. We have everything set up to let the murderers rule to begin with. Your right I agree with all your saying, yet what is the solution? If the victims family speaks up for attention it is countered with what about the poor murderers family they already have all the attention, pen pal sites.blogs, every where you go, they want & get all the attention & no one is screaming foul.............. As far as I know, mail in prison is a right, not a privilege. I can't think of anyone who was permanently denied contact with the outside world. As for the attention accorded murderers, that is going to happen when we turn them into celebrities, and that's going to happen if we punish some much harder than others. I don't think we have that problem in California so much, because murderers here do a lot of time. I just learned that in the Maria Hicks case, the 16-year-old who shot her got 50 years to life, and I have every confidence he'll serve it all. Ms. Hicks was shot to death one mile from where I live, by gangsters who were upset when she told them to stop tagging a fence. So, what your saying it is a catch 22, let them all live or execute them all... Lets see with 16 thousands victims keep all murderers ( 1st degree murder) sentenced to or 50 or more yrs inside.... Then let out the ones we talked about who you do not believe in rehab, community service, the non violent & all 1st time drunk drivers & preg druggies.................then.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 16:50:05 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/623364/thread" timestamp="1401827626" author=" quote]As far as I know, mail in prison is a right, not a privilege. I can't think of anyone who was permanently denied contact with the outside world. Mail is a right, unless deemed a problem in it. Also a advertisement for" a pen pal " ad" by three maybe more states now, have banned inmates from having ads. It is argued it helps reduce recidivisim for inmate's who willl be released back to society. For those not to be released it helps with their isolation.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 3, 2014 18:29:32 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/623354/thread" timestamp="1401820947" author=" So are the alleged "pros." It is laughable to deem those on death row as the "worst of the worst," given how infrequently Texas juries sentence murderers to death. Common sense would tell you hundreds, if not thousands, of murderers who deserve death lucked out and are housed in genpop instead. Also by California legal process as you stated for examples" are the main reason prison has become big business, incarcerating instead of or in place of rehab, community service even for non violent prison is to automatic. Oh, but the rich celeb's only get that I forgot over there. Which is wasted money going no where. I don't believe in rehab or "community service," which is a joke, and neither do most Californians. The "rehabilitation" of a criminal is his problem, not ours.[/quote] Incarcerated for a serious crime. True, but do you think this is a joke.. convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal drugs. Federal law stipulates five years’ imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires possession of 500 grams – 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for up to two years’ imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 5, 2014 11:44:40 GMT -6
Polls are meaningless. You can phrase a poll question to get any kind of response you want. Which is why I refuse to engage with the signature gatherers in front of Target. It's a waste of my time. It's not just murder. I happen to believe that, at one time, most Americans had a moral compass that guided their lives and I think that helped make our nation great. Sadly, most of that is now gone. I believe you and I would also agree that indeterminate sentencing is only fueling the current slide towards complete judicial moral decay. We may already be there. We give juries way too much credit, wrongly believing that the "common man" can see the best way forward in all cases. But our elected representatives are no better, having created 50 different Gordian knots of different definitions of murder, as well as telling us which murders are the really bad ones vs. those we ought to accept.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 6, 2014 18:07:06 GMT -6
It's not just murder. I happen to believe that, at one time, most Americans had a moral compass that guided their lives and I think that helped make our nation great. Sadly, most of that is now gone. I blame Christianity for that. I believe you and I would also agree that indeterminate sentencing is only fueling the current slide towards complete judicial moral decay. We may already be there. We give juries way too much credit, wrongly believing that the "common man" can see the best way forward in all cases. But our elected representatives are no better, having created 50 different Gordian knots of different definitions of murder, as well as telling us which murders are the really bad ones vs. those we ought to accept. Well, California's definition of murder is better than in most states. We sentence more people to death than any other state. Close to where I live, a juvenile was sentenced to 50 years to life for the murder of Maria Hicks. You are correct, though. We have an Old Testament view of the law, or at least of murder. Just don't do it. I don't understand the moral reasoning behind indeterminate sentencing. How can you look at a convict and determine punishment? What is the point?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 6, 2014 18:11:02 GMT -6
convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal drugs. Federal law stipulates five years’ imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires possession of 500 grams – 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for up to two years’ imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug. I've for standardizing on the most draconian punishment. After that the electorate can decide whether the standard punishment is too harsh. I think the taxpayers have better things to do with their money than babysit felons after they serve their sentences. Recidivism is a moral problem, not a social problem.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 6, 2014 18:18:16 GMT -6
what your saying it is a catch 22, let them all live or execute them all. We do let them all live. Except for 40 a year. That's one murderer put to death for every 400 that murders, every year. Lets see with 16 thousands victims keep all murderers ( 1st degree murder) sentenced to or 50 or more yrs inside That sounds good to me. That would be a lot more justice than what we have now. Then let out the ones we talked about who you do not believe in rehab, community service, the non violent & all 1st time drunk drivers & preg druggies.................then. Let me know when you find an ex-convict who speaks positively about his/her parole, and how it saved them from going back to prison.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 7, 2014 10:16:06 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/623366/thread" timestamp="1401831747" author= quote]Let me know when you find an ex-convict who speaks positively about his/her parole, and how it saved them from going back to prison. What does parole have to do with non violent or one sent to prison for a ounce of marijuana? Back to community service, rehab not talking about murderers or rapist... empty the prisons of those makes more sense for society even.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 15, 2014 17:14:44 GMT -6
I don't understand the moral reasoning behind indeterminate sentencing. How can you look at a convict and determine punishment? What is the point? I don't really know when it started. My guess would be the early 1960's, which is when otherwise laudable notions of social justice were hijacked by liberal university students studying "criminology". We thought we were making judges truly independent, giving them ultimate power to decided a sentence. But isn't that power largely given to juries now (at least in murder cases)? Twelve of your Oprah-loving peers, deciding your fate based upon whether or not the glove fits. And in cases where we give a judge the power to decided a sentence, how incredibly unfair is that? Punishment for two practically identical cases could be decided more or less harshly, depending upon whether or not the judge had a good night's sleep. A hallmark of any moral judicial system is its consistency, its uniformity. Punishment for any given crime must be the same in every case, for every person found guilty. Once we stopped believing in that, we gave up a fundamental moral position that I don't believe we can really get back. Justice in America now is a total crap shoot.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 16, 2014 9:31:40 GMT -6
A hallmark of any moral judicial system is its consistency, its uniformity. Punishment for any given crime must be the same in every case, for every person found guilty. Once we stopped believing in that, we gave up a fundamental moral position that I don't believe we can really get back. Justice in America now is a total crap shoot. I think that's true. I don't understand why nothing mitigates or aggravates a violation of either the traffic or municipal codes, but commit murder and the state wants to hear and consider every excuse.
|
|