Williams' clemency denied

[Jedi of Zen]

Now I know it's probably a flaming thread waiting to happen, but I read that Tookie Williams, the founder of the Crips gang, was denied clemency from death row on murder charges.

Gov Schwartznegger's reason for this is that (at least according to the article I read) he doesn't believe Williams is sincere enough in his repentance.

The way I see it - why should that matter, legally speaking? I hate to sound harsh, but just because someone says "I'm sorry" doesn't mean that they should be let off the hook for committing a crime. While it's great that Williams has done what he's done (writing the kids books, speaking out against gang violence, etc), I don't think it merits clemency or a pardon or anything.

What do you guys think?

[and1grad]

I think you're wrong. All this does is cement the fact that the judicial system doesnt care if you attempt to rehabilitate and make a positive difference in yours or other's lives. If that's Arnold's statement, its a joke. Its not like they asked for his release. The whole thing disgusts me.

[ebruening]

All this does is cement the fact that the judicial system doesnt care if you attempt to rehabilitate and make a positive difference in yours or other's lives...The whole thing disgusts me.

Agreed, and1.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

A touchy subject indeed, this should be good. :cool:

[cheshrcarol]

All this does is cement the fact that the judicial system doesnt care if you attempt to rehabilitate and make a positive difference in yours or other's lives. So that brings up the question of whether the point of our justice system is to punish or rehabilitate? And for the sake of argument, should rehabilitation be the goal for all offenders? For example, child molesters - if they're sorry should they receive clemency in their sentencing?

BTW, I don't actually believe in the death penalty. I would think after thousands of years we would have gotten away from the philosophy of an eye for an eye.

[and1grad]

I dont believe in the death penalty either. I think its hypocrisy at its finest. Anyway, I thought the justice system was supposed to do both. I thought that was the whole rationale behind doing your time and expecting someone to go back out on the street and do something with their lives. Here you have an example of a man thats tried to use whats left of his life to make a difference in others so they dont follow his path and his mistakes. Clearly, thats not the intent around here. Is it a surprise why so many black people dont trust the police? You have a man legitimately trying to make a difference and all he asks for is his life...not even to be free...just to spare his life so maybe he can do another gangbanger some good. Yet, he's been deemed insincere by a Governor who couldnt even be sincere in not being bought.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

What is so bad about an eye for an eye?

Maybe I'm simple minded, but it seems perfect to me.

You do something to someone, its done right back to you. Lesson: If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Pure genius in its simplicity.

Sure, its gonna rarely fail when someone is wrongly accused and convicted, but too bad, it doesn't nulify the pure justice of the reasoning...

because nothing should be expected to be perfect in this world, so why should justice?

[MrAnonymous]

I don't think and1grad is correct. I think Williams has not repented despite what is supposedly overwhelming evidence that he is guilty.

With and1grad I thought the system was supposed to do both. Before, a person can be rehabilitated though, I expect that person accept their beatings, accept that they screwed up, and accept that others are righteous in delivering pain to them so others don't get confused as to what the consequrences are. Williams never accepted that he screwed up and never accepted that he deserves a beating... So Williams will get what is coming to him despite any good that people claim he has done.

I'm hessitant to get rid of the death penalty. I am sensitive to those that want to execute traitors, spies, and other penalties. Some people can't, or don't deserve, to be rehabilitated. I tend to want to torture child molestors as do many people. I'll compromise on peacefully killing them. I don't think that's a radical view.

I know white yuppies that don't trust the police.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

Yeah...a lot of people don't trust the police, regardless of class, race, or creed. Moot point.

Even Christians who believe in free forgiveness still don't deny that there are earthly consequences for your actions...

like this man, sitting on death row because he started a terrible gang.

Sounds good to me...the angels may recieve him, but here he will die for his actions.

Next.

[wordsmith]

I think you're wrong. All this does is cement the fact that the judicial system doesnt care if you attempt to rehabilitate and make a positive difference in yours or other's lives. If that's Arnold's statement, its a joke. Its not like they asked for his release. The whole thing disgusts me.

I agree with this. A strictly punitive judicial system does no good. An eye for an eye doesn't undo crimes or bring back the dead. We SHOULD be emphasizing rehabilitation whenever possible. Doesn't mean anybody's gotta go free.

[and1grad]

Executions prove nothing and are meaningless. They serve no purpose. There's no vindication and its not justice. An eye for an eye has never been justice. If so, less people would survive to even make it to jail. Killing someone makes you a murderer. You can convince yourself that you're better but you're just another monster.

[wordsmith]

Killing someone makes you a murderer. You can convince yourself that you're better but you're just another monster.


One hundred and fifty bazillion percent agree.

[SmilesSoSweet]

The guy killed two people. Regardless if he's "turned his life around" the two people he killed can never come back from the dead. He created one of the biggest, well-known gangs in LA. Even if he has better himself, he shouldn't be granted the clemency. That's all I'll say on this.

[and1grad]

Also, its not a moot point. Do you really want to compare a yuppie's mistrust of the police to that of what is most likely the majority of black people in this country?

[pisces2473]

Also, its not a moot point. Do you really want to compare a yuppie's mistrust of the police to that of what is most likely the majority of black people in this country?
That cracks me up. Yuppies afraid of the police? Oh why, cuz they are speeding in their Land Rovers on their way to the country club?

[wordsmith]

With their cocaine stuffed in their 80's shoulderpads, Jen!!!

[ledzeppelinfan1]

Executions prove nothing and are meaningless.

BS...They prove there are potentially grave consequences to our actions...because you could be killed. This fact prevents many people from doing certain unspeakables every day I'm sure. Seems to be working.

They serve no purpose.

See above.

There's no vindication and its not justice.

Some crimes do not deserve vindication, but termination of one's freedom and very existence.
An eye for an eye has never been justice.

Yes, it has...and is...and should always be.


If so, less people would survive to even make it to jail.

And that saves us all money. Sounds like a plan.


Killing someone makes you a murderer.

Only in the right context, my friend. If someone killed someone close to you, and they recieved the death penalty, I seriously doubt that you would be pissed at the judge because he sentenced them to death.

You can convince yourself that you're better but you're just another monster.

Uhm...See above.




Basically, I don't agree with a word you just said.

[and1grad]

No one can predict how they'd react in that situation.

Anyway, if it were working, there would no longer be crimes that would warrant such a penatly so you're obviously wrong.

As for the rest of your post....see above.

[MrAnonymous]

Executions prove nothing and are meaningless. They serve no purpose. There's no vindication and its not justice. An eye for an eye has never been justice. If so, less people would survive to even make it to jail. Killing someone makes you a murderer. You can convince yourself that you're better but you're just another monster.

I think saying that "Killing someone makes you a murderer" is too much a generalization or, otherwise, you accept that some murder is a positive thing. I propose that there is gray area to killing people.

A good person can easily say that some people need to be killed or, even more ambivalent, some killings of people cannot be avoided and that those that do this are not murderers.

[MrAnonymous]

That cracks me up. Yuppies afraid of the police? Oh why, cuz they are speeding in their Land Rovers on their way to the country club?

YEP!!!!!!!!! Except... ummm... the Yuppies I know prefer Mercedes Benzes and Lexuses... 100 MPH as speeding my ass- that's barely 3rd gear!!!

[and1grad]

I think saying that "Killing someone makes you a murderer" is too much a generalization or, otherwise, you accept that some murder is a positive thing. I propose that there is gray area to killing people.

A good person can easily say that some people need to be killed or, even more ambivalent, some killings of people cannot be avoided and that those that do this are not murderers.
Explain please.

[wordsmith]

I don't agree with you AT all. And nowhere was that accepting that some murder is a positive thing. Killing a person is NEVER positive.

[MrAnonymous]

I don't accept that soldiers commit murder- for acceptable conditions like bombing cities, even if innocents die.

I don't accept that police commit murder- for acceptable conditions like chasing down criminals, even if innocents die.

I think the vast majority of humanity has accepted both these hypotheticals as not murder.

If you feel that is all murder, which I define as a deliberate and injust attempt to kill someone, then we have a keen disagreement. If you feel murder is simply manslaughter, good or bad, than our differences may be less so.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

I don't accept that soldiers commit murder- for acceptable conditions like bombing cities, even if innocents die.

I don't accept that police commit murder- for acceptable conditions like chasing down criminals, even if innocents die.

I think the vast majority of humanity has accepted both these hypotheticals as not murder.

If you feel that is all murder, which I define as a deliberate and injust attempt to kill someone, then we have a keen disagreement. If you feel murder is simply manslaughter, good or bad, than our differences may be less so.

Yes...there is much reasoning in this post.

[wordsmith]

I don't buy it. I don't believe that there is ever justification to kill. For anybody. Nothing makes it right.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

I don't buy it. I don't believe that there is ever justification to kill. For anybody. Nothing makes it right.

But some things make it necessary...

like defending freedom.

Yes, that thing we take for granted every day that provides us all safe homes and cities where we need not worry for our lives which was founded upon the men and women who killed and were killed in war.

It doesn't matter if it's right...its why we have rights...

open your eyes.

[MrAnonymous]

I don't buy it. I don't believe that there is ever justification to kill. For anybody. Nothing makes it right.

Then, not to be too negative, your philosophical school is a uniquely small minority. The world has not gotten to that point. Even the civilized world has not yet made it to that point.

To say all killing is murder is to condem such heros as Lincoln and Roosevelt as mass murderers. How many Americans died as a conclusion to Lincoln's orders. Even better, he initiated the "draft" into insuring that there were sufficient "killers" upon which he could draw from so that his foes could not resist him. How many Germans and Japanese, many non-combatants sleeping in their own beds, died and were burnt under FDR's vision of a new world. To condemn these men as murderers is to condemn them as genocidal maniacs. I can't think of anyone I know willing to go down that path.

Sorry dude, the world you dream of does not exist.

[wordsmith]

Number one, I'm not a dude, and number two, I could care less how small a minority I am. They're called principles. If killing is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

Number one, I'm not a dude, and number two, I could care less how small a minority I am. They're called principles. If killing is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.

I agree that you are not a dude, and I also agree that the world you dream of does not exist.

[3point1four]

I think you're wrong. All this does is cement the fact that the judicial system doesnt care if you attempt to rehabilitate and make a positive difference in yours or other's lives. If that's Arnold's statement, its a joke. Its not like they asked for his release. The whole thing disgusts me.

he started one of the most violent gangs in history. He should die for that, not only the 4 shotgun murders he committed.

[onahappiernote]

From Reuters Adam Tanner: "Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case," Schwarzenegger wrote. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption."

If Williams did apologize and atone, would it matter? Would a struggling Republican governor really grant clemency in a case with this much coverage? How would his base feel about that? I personally don't think Williams ever had a chance with the courts, but if there were a different governor, or even if it were a different year, he could have gotten his clemency.

[and1grad]

It would be even sadder if a man's life would be determined by a party line.

[onahappiernote]

Yet it seems possible when we establish a system that allows us to kill one another.

[manicmonkie]

In my opinion I don't think we should put anybody to death. For one, think of the effect it will have on the executioners and on the family of Tookie. Death is definitely not something that should be taken lightly in the least. I don't think we realize the true magnitude of ending somebody's life because we haven't witnessed it first hand. I just watched a movie (which is very far away from the real thing) but it was the movie Capote and in the end two men are hanged. Just watching it on the screen made me very uncomfortable to say the least. Last of all, who are we to say who lives and dies?

[ledzeppelinfan1]

No death penalty? Whats next, allowing inmates to sue because they were convicted and sent to prison?

There is nothing PC about violent crime, and there should be nothing PC about the punishment thereof.

Thank God there isn't.

[wordsmith]

Twelve states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories DON'T have a death penalty punishment.

According to the New York Times, the dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, statistics and analysis show. FBI data also has shown that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishemnt have homicide rates below the national average, and half the states with death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. It's hard to make a case that capital punshment is a an effective deterrant.

[ledzeppelinfan1]

Williams is dead.

Sure he was a nice guy underneath the charges, but it's too late for it to matter.

RIP...and in your next lifetime, don't start another gang.

[old_school_soul]

RIP...and in your next lifetime, don't start another gang.

That's right, because if Tookie never started that gang, those citizens of LA would have been good little impoverished, disenfranchised, ghetto dwelling folks and never started a gang.

[lawya girl]

Then, not to be too negative, your philosophical school is a uniquely small minority. The world has not gotten to that point. Even the civilized world has not yet made it to that point.

To say all killing is murder is to condem such heros as Lincoln and Roosevelt as mass murderers. How many Americans died as a conclusion to Lincoln's orders. Even better, he initiated the "draft" into insuring that there were sufficient "killers" upon which he could draw from so that his foes could not resist him. How many Germans and Japanese, many non-combatants sleeping in their own beds, died and were burnt under FDR's vision of a new world. To condemn these men as murderers is to condemn them as genocidal maniacs. I can't think of anyone I know willing to go down that path.

Sorry dude, the world you dream of does not exist.

This is so true. Sure, killing is never a "positive" thing and in a perfect world, it would NEVER be necessary and I'm not convinced that it's "necessary" now in that I believe war is not the best solution to any problem. But I do NOT view soldiers as murderers. What if someone broke into your house, raped you or a family member, and was on the verge of killing you when you shoot them first. Does that make you a murderer?

[paiger81]

This is so true. Sure, killing is never a "positive" thing and in a perfect world, it would NEVER be necessary and I'm not convinced that it's "necessary" now in that I believe war is not the best solution to any problem. But I do NOT view soldiers as murderers. What if someone broke into your house, raped you or a family member, and was on the verge of killing you when you shoot them first. Does that make you a murderer?

I agree with this. I, personally, believe in the death penalty, but at times, I do think it's used more often than it should be.

With Tookie, I honestly don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, what he did was horrific(starting the gang, murdering people) BUT he did do a hell of a lot to atone for his past issues.

[wordsmith]

It's easy to make an emotional play when talking about the moral relativism of killing...is it murder if it's to save your own life, the life of your endangered child, the lives of innocent citizens in war-torn countries with dictatorial regimes, etc.

But no lives are saved by putting somebody who is already jailed, no poss. of parole, to death. Why are you killing somebody? It's reactionary at best. It's too late, you're not righting any wrongs. What greater good is it doing (whereas shooting an intruder in your house is saving people and yourself from being attacked or killed)? Is it a really a deterrent? I don't think that's too conclusive.

[and1grad]

Self defense isnt murder. It also isnt an argument having anything to do with the death penalty. Neither is war. Its a meaningless tangent with FDR being the worst example you could think of to try to make a point. Whats next? Is someone gonna come up with the argument that a man fell to his death so gravity must've murdered him? Give me a break.

[and1grad]

But no lives are saved by putting somebody who is already jailed, no poss. of parole, to death. Why are you killing somebody? It's reactionary at best. It's too late, you're not righting any wrongs. What greater good is it doing (whereas shooting an intruder in your house is saving people and yourself from being attacked or killed)? Is it a really a deterrent? I don't think that's too conclusive.
Thank you. I wouldnt even give it the benefit of saying its reactionary as much as its just a stupid show of having power over another man's life. It solves nothing. Thats been proven.

[wordsmith]

I am not big on capital punishment or anything. But from my understanding this dude started the most dangerous gang. If anything this is a message to all those young teenagers with guns.

The flipside of this is, just for another perspective, is that there are many ways to send messages...this guy, and others, went on to speak out against gang affiliation and gang violence. He wrote Nobel Peace prize-nominated children's books. You can say big deal, it doesn't come close to making up for wrongs done, and you may be right. But it IS doing something, and it's foolish to downplay the impact that soembody who was involved in the system can have on turning others away from it. If gang leaders, etc. become advocates against gang activity, they are the people who youth already affiliated with gangs are going to listen to. Somebody who was there is who has the most credibility among kids who are at risk for gang affiliation. That's not an insignificant thing, at all.

[wordsmith]

According me to what I think they will listen to is: "Maybe I can be a badass now and there is always a chance later in life when I can make the wrong right after all we live only once right".

I disagree. It's hard to look at somebody sitting in a pound-me-in-the-ass prison and think "Awesome, that's where I wanna be."

[wordsmith]

I'm not talking about criminals. I'm talking about deterring kids from gang activity. Which is really the only good that somebody like Williams could do with his life at the point at which he was killed.

[wordsmith]

But then why is crime ever increasing if criminals are so afraid of prisons?

The same thing could be asked in regard to capital crimes...they're not going down in places where people are being put to death.

[heatherf]

Personally, I think a lot of the real issues come down to the fact that rehabilitation is not the core goal of prison. Money is not given to rehabilitate. Money is given to build more, larger prisons. And IMO a lot of it comes down to how large the prison guard/employees unions in this state. SOOOO many prisons here in CA are located in the most of po-dunk areas, where they are HUGE employers. Nobody would live in these places otherwise.....BELIEVE ME (a lot of the central valley here is ugh at it's best).

San Quentin itself is a whole other story. It's located in the SF Bay- and seriously, the views from San Quentin are freaking BEAUTIFUL (when it's not foggy). One of my relatives works at Quentin. My relative has said that it's been interesting to say the least there lately - with Snoop Dogg and all coming to visit.

[manicmonkie]

It's easy to make an emotional play when talking about the moral relativism of killing...is it murder if it's to save your own life, the life of your endangered child, the lives of innocent citizens in war-torn countries with dictatorial regimes, etc.

But no lives are saved by putting somebody who is already jailed, no poss. of parole, to death. Why are you killing somebody? It's reactionary at best. It's too late, you're not righting any wrongs. What greater good is it doing (whereas shooting an intruder in your house is saving people and yourself from being attacked or killed)? Is it a really a deterrent? I don't think that's too conclusive.
So very true :)

[wordsmith]

Personally, I think a lot of the real issues come down to the fact that rehabilitation is not the core goal of prison. Money is not given to rehabilitate.

I agree. And prisons are a major employment source here, too, the industry that keeps many small towns' populations employed.

[and1grad]

Karma? Thats absurd.

The only message people are gonna get is that the judicial system DOES NOT care about doing anything but imprisoning and killing black men.

[J-girl]

The thing is wordsmith in Canada where people strongly believe in what you believe in which is a very good virtue but these criminals KEEP taking advantages of the niceness and make life a living hell for others.

There are SO many community programs, incentives for low income youth, even some corporations have agreed to locate to low neighbourhood incomes to provide jobs. But would you think that makes a difference- nah?

The prison laws are so lax, you pay 1000 bucks and you are out on the streets again with a gun.

Sometimes I seriously wish all these fuckers could be wiped off. What purpose are they serving to humanity?

[wordsmith]

he aint no angel.

I sincerely doubt anybody's thinking anybody's an angel. But, from prison, he had the ability to do perform some sort of good in the world (while still being made to do time for wrongs done). That won't happen now.

[and1grad]

The thing is wordsmith in Canada where people strongly believe in what you believe in which is a very good virtue but these criminals KEEP taking advantages of the niceness and make life a living hell for others.

There are SO many community programs, incentives for low income youth, even some corporations have agreed to locate to low neighbourhood incomes to provide jobs. But would you think that makes a difference- nah?

The prison laws are so lax, you pay 1000 bucks and you are out on the streets again with a gun.

Sometimes I seriously wish all these fuckers could be wiped off. What purpose are they serving to humanity?
You dont know what you're talking about. We're talking South Central LA in the 80s.

[wordsmith]

There are SO many community programs, incentives for low income youth, even some corporations have agreed to locate to low neighbourhood incomes to provide jobs. But would you think that makes a difference- nah?


Here's food for thought. I worked doing mentoring in a highly gang-ridden area. I have no regrets about it at all. But I did it long enough to learn one thing very early on. You've got a group of middle-school-aged boys at risk for gang recruitment. You've got an evening youth group going...Who is going to be a more inspirational and lasting impact on the kids? Me, a lily-white, college-educated farm girl who has never fired a gun in her life and grew up in relative peace and tranquility, or our site custodian, an ex-gangbanger from the projects, who grew up EXACTLY like the kids I was working with did, and made his mistakes, and turned his life around? Guess who I immediately recruited to be my sidekick in working w/ these kids?

[paiger81]

Why would I not know what I am talking about?

South Central LA in the 80's was hard core. I don't know that any of us could really imagine what it was truly like.

[heatherf]

Gangs really do provide a lot for children. Not in good ways- but in the ways that they are unable to get it elsewhere. I see a million reasons why children/teens would want to join a gang, rather than not.

[wordsmith]

If they didn't provide something kids, particularly impoverished, poorly parented kids, need (a sense of acceptance, belongingness, somebody having your back in a world where nobody else might), they wouldn't exist.

The key is in doing what you can to improve parenting, and in providing other sources to fulfill these need that don't put kids in the line of violence and illegal activity.

[wordsmith]

Thats awsome and you kick ass! We need more people like you. And your sidekick.

Well,not really, because I'm not doing it anymore, though I'd like to get back into it. But I do miss my sidekick. He was a good guy. Right time and right place, and he could have been Tookie Williams, though. Which is the reason I won't underestimate the good somebody can do. But like I said...now, he won't.

[Jedi of Zen]

The problem I have with abolishing the death penalty - and let's use the Williams case as an example - is this: First, the families of the victims got screwed over when they lost their loved ones. Then, the system screws them over again by making them pay - thru taxes - to keep Williams alive in jail year after year. Making sure he gets a roof over his head, 3 meals a day, free medical care if he gets sick, etc. The death penalty makes sense not only as a moral deterrent but also economically. No, I don't believe the death penalty should automatically apply in every single case of murder, but in a case like this one - the man started a gang that has killed and destroyed hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives; he probably killed far more than the 4 people he was arrested for; I just don't feel much sympathy. One poster made the comment "Who are we to decide who lives or dies?" Sure, I'll just go shoot up the next 7-11 clerk I buy gas from - I mean, who am I to decide if he should keep living or not? And finally, if he was truly sorry about his lifestyle, why did he refuse all those years to give police any information about other gang members? My understanding is that he said he had "no interest in being a snitch". I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I'll leave the thread now.

[J-girl]

Well,not really, because I'm not doing it anymore, though I'd like to get back into it. But I do miss my sidekick. He was a good guy. Right time and right place, and he could have been Tookie Williams, though. Which is the reason I won't underestimate the good somebody can do. But like I said...now, he won't.


I am conflicted on this issue. I agree with you but on the other hand I agree with Jedi as well.

Although I have a lot of respect for inner city high school teachers and social workers.

[heatherf]

I mean that's right. People who need gov't assistance to stay alive, surely do not deserve to live. :confused:

Can we apply this to senior citizens too? Hey, we'd solve the social security crisis like overnight! Sweet!

[J-girl]

But senior citizens worked hard all their life and paid taxes and they are getting their dues. Or regardless they led crime free lives.

Not trying to be devil's advocate but you cant compare the two.

[heatherf]

But senior citizens worked hard all their life and paid taxes and they are getting their dues. Or regardless they led crime free lives.

Not trying to be devil's advocate but you cant compare the two.

It's called sarcasm. I was being "sarcastic".

And no, for one to receive a social security check- technically they did not have to work for a paycheck at any time in their life.

[J-girl]

I know you were being "sarcastic" but like I said they led crime free lifes if that is your argument.

[and1grad]

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, gangs arent the result of Tookie Williams. Its WAY more than that. It almost surprises me how disconnected people are from reality in terms of these societal issues. Honestly, if you dont understand why this guy's death is important, then you really have NO idea about what and how people of these neighborhoods think or their relationship with the judicial system in general.

[heatherf]

My point was/is that because it does cost money to keep a person in prison, is not a sufficient reason to kill them. I don't buy the argument that it costs money to keep them alive- so instead the death penalty is a good idea- cause it saves the tax payers some money? Rather, I feel a sense of the guilt myself, as it was MY tax dollars going towards killing a man.

[heatherf]

I agree with that. I also actually rather have them have their balls chopped off and be alive in prison. Thats a better lesson than death penalty. But thats more appropriate for pedophiles.


Alrighty then.

[heatherf]

I just wonder if his clemency would have been granted had he been the "1000th" person to be put to death in the US- as was the man on the east coast.

[and1grad]

I wonder if they'd take it back if they found out it was an error like in "Mr. 3000."

[heatherf]

I wonder if they'd take it back if they found out it was an error like in "Mr. 3000."

Tell me that you did NOT see that movie And1. :neutral: I didn't need to see it, I think I got the jist from the trailer alone (and all the funny lines).

Confession: I saw the movie "Taxi" (with Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon) in the movie theaters. I deserve a beating. :cool:

[and1grad]

Tell me that you did NOT see that movie And1. :neutral: I didn't need to see it, I think I got the jist from the trailer alone (and all the funny lines).

Confession: I saw the movie "Taxi" (with Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon) in the movie theaters. I deserve a beating. :cool:
HA! In my defense, I saw it on cable. It did have 1 good part in it tho...which wasnt even a comedic part. But, Taxi? I mean...Taxi!?!? Even the previews for that were painful.

[heatherf]

HA! In my defense, I saw it on cable. It did have 1 good part in it tho...which wasnt even a comedic part. But, Taxi? I mean...Taxi!?!? Even the previews for that were painful.

I was desperate. Actually, I don't have an excuse. I'll leave the boards now, tail between my legs. ;) I need to go feed my kid.

[wordsmith]

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, gangs arent the result of Tookie Williams. Its WAY more than that. It almost surprises me how disconnected people are from reality in terms of these societal issues. Honestly, if you dont understand why this guy's death is important, then you really have NO idea about what and how people of these neighborhoods think or their relationship with the judicial system in general.

Very, very true.

[lawya girl]

Self defense isnt murder. It also isnt an argument having anything to do with the death penalty. Neither is war. Its a meaningless tangent with FDR being the worst example you could think of to try to make a point. Whats next? Is someone gonna come up with the argument that a man fell to his death so gravity must've murdered him? Give me a break.

And I wasn't commenting specifically on capital punishment at all - I still haven't made up my mind on that one. I was merely saying that you can't make blanket statements like "all killing is murder." That is all.

[RudeGirl]

From Reuters Adam Tanner: "Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case," Schwarzenegger wrote. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption."

If Williams did apologize and atone, would it matter? Would a struggling Republican governor really grant clemency in a case with this much coverage? How would his base feel about that? I personally don't think Williams ever had a chance with the courts, but if there were a different governor, or even if it were a different year, he could have gotten his clemency.

I don't think this is an issue of struggling vs. non struggling, or an issue of Republican vs. not Republican.

The question is, does the state have the right to take someone's life? Under what conditions? Can the state apply justice expediently, and can the state apply justice accurately?

In too many death-penalty cases, the state cannot apply justice correctly; and the state's right to end the life of its citizens in every case is heavliy debatable.

I am not big on capital punishment or anything. But from my understanding this dude started the most dangerous gang. If anything this is a message to all those young teenagers with guns.

Like Vernon said "you mess with the bull......"

It's, if anything, a message to young teenagers who live in dangerous neighborhoods to arm themselves. There's nothing quite like a weapon as one's best defense against a similar weapon.

[RudeGirl]

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, gangs arent the result of Tookie Williams. Its WAY more than that. It almost surprises me how disconnected people are from reality in terms of these societal issues. Honestly, if you dont understand why this guy's death is important, then you really have NO idea about what and how people of these neighborhoods think or their relationship with the judicial system in general.

I don't think most people would make such a sweeping generalization as, "gangs are the result of Tookie Williams."

Undoubtedly, there is a correlation between police brutality, drug-related arrests, poverty level, and skin color. The current drug laws are certainly written so as to disproportionately punish crack cocaine users, too, which can be construed as a racist action. Cities that ban concealed carries are also doing their part to foster gang violence.

However, all the money and outreach programs in the world are no substitute for simple common sense.

[Deadend]

Cities that ban concealed carries are also doing their part to foster gang violence.

Do we need to post gun death rate statistics on the US vs. the rest of the civilized world again?

Comparing outreach programs with "common sense" is like comparing the flavour of the fish with the flavour of the net. Uh ya.... people acting safe for themselves is exactly what the goal of the outreach programs is.

[wordsmith]

The goal of outreach is to teach, and provide support where there is none.

[RudeGirl]

Do we need to post gun death rate statistics on the US vs. the rest of the civilized world again?

Comparing outreach programs with "common sense" is like comparing the flavour of the fish with the flavour of the net. Uh ya.... people acting safe for themselves is exactly what the goal of the outreach programs is.

I'm comparing the state saving us from ourselves to us saving ourselves from the state--incidentally, that can apply to bearing arms, common sense, or anything else applicable in this argument.

[Deadend]

You're not making much sense. Other than sounding a little bit like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Michigan millitia much?

I'm sure everyone in Compton just needs to be lectured on "common sence".......

[RudeGirl]

As you can see I have no opinion on capital punishment. But Rudegirl- I get the feeling that you are trying to say capital punishment breeds anarchy i.e. people arming themselves- to fight against the Government?

As a side, an Australian guy in singapore got hanged for drug possession!!!! Thats HORRIFIC! :eek:

No, I'm saying that capital punishment is inherently unjust because it involves the state making a decision about whether or not to take a life, often in a highly corrupted procedure.

I'm always advocating people defending themselves against the government treading on their rights, though. And you can bet that when the next round of Bird Flu or the next weather disaster hits, and Chimpy gets all martial law on our collective asses, I'll arm myself.

In Singapore, they cane you for littering. :eek:

You're not making much sense. Other than sounding a little bit like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

My copy of Mao's Little Red Book is dusty, now that you mention it. For shame!

Michigan millitia much?

No, not exactly the Michigan Militia. Hey, but I am e-mail buddies with PA Senate candidate John Featherman! And he's all into the Philly Civilian Police, and stuff!

[wordsmith]

Here are methods of execution by state. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004916.html)

[Deadend]

I think at some point we have to have a *little* bit of faith in democracy. If we're going to say that all government is corrupt and out to get us so we better bite back first, we're on the highway to anarchy, dictionary definition.

Did democracy work for Tookie? Apperently not. Arnie's political career is going to be short, as I understand it. It's too bad they can't recall him. I guess the idea is that californians who wanted clemancy are supposed to think about the dead man at the polls. There's an arguement agains capital punishment there then. Minimize the effect of political climate at a time by minimizing the powers government has to commit irreversable acts.

I'm with and1 all the way on this. We can sit here and proscilitize until the cows come home about what act sends what message to who, but we KNOW what message young black kids in LA are going to get. And it doesn't change just because we yuppies stamp our feet and lecture them on personal responsibility and what they should be getting out of this execution. And yes, people were in this thread emphasizing his crimes by underlining the fact that he "started the cribs". The implication there IS that this man is the cause of gangs.

[and1grad]

You defend yourself with education and by becoming a contributing member of society. You defend yourself by helping show kids in the community that they can belong in something besides a gang. You defend yourself by giving kids someone to look up to. You defend yourself by showing that someone gives a damn and that the world isnt hopeless.

You dont defend yourself by picking up a gun.

[wordsmith]

You defend yourself with education and by becoming a contributing member of society. You defend yourself by helping show kids in the community that they can belong in something besides a gang. You defend yourself by giving kids someone to look up to. You defend yourself by showing that someone gives a damn and that the world isnt hopeless.


Can I hug you?

[Deadend]

Here here!

[RudeGirl]

If we're going to say that all government is corrupt and out to get us so we better bite back first, we're on the highway to anarchy, dictionary definition.

"We're" not saying that all government is corrupt. "We're" saying that the powers of government become corrupted when expanded beyond their original means. And just to clarify, I'm not necessarily talking about the death penalty, though it is abused and applied incorrectly.

There's an arguement agains capital punishment there then. Minimize the effect of political climate at a time by minimizing the powers government has to commit irreversable acts.

So then we agree?

You defend yourself with education and by becoming a contributing member of society.

You dont defend yourself by picking up a gun.

A amalgamation of these three defense methods are possible, too.

[paiger81]

I'm always advocating people defending themselves against the government treading on their rights, though. And you can bet that when the next round of Bird Flu or the next weather disaster hits, and Chimpy gets all martial law on our collective asses, I'll arm myself.


Can I go on the record, that just cause one may own a gun, does not mean they are as extreme as Rude Girl, here.

That is all. Thanks.

[ebruening]

Here are methods of execution by state. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004916.html)

Nebraska using electrocution as the only method of execution says a lot about the political climate here.

[RudeGirl]

Can I go on the record, that just cause one may own a gun, does not mean they are as extreme as Rude Girl, here.

That is all. Thanks.

Paige, you are a beacon of reason in my maniacal whirlwhind, and your insight is much appreciated. :) :) :)

[MrAnonymous]

Self defense isnt murder. It also isnt an argument having anything to do with the death penalty. Neither is war. Its a meaningless tangent with FDR being the worst example you could think of to try to make a point. Whats next? Is someone gonna come up with the argument that a man fell to his death so gravity must've murdered him? Give me a break.

Let me quote you:
"Killing someone makes you a murderer. You can convince yourself that you're better but you're just another monster."

I offered that that was too much a generalization. I claimed that there was gray area in killing people and you were not immediately convinced. The example I used was thoroughly valid though I do like your use of "tangent"- a good math term. And yes, with your original definition of murder, gravity could muder people.

Glad to see you becoming open minded regarding killing people; that not all killing is murder.

[MrAnonymous]

I don't think this is an issue of struggling vs. non struggling, or an issue of Republican vs. not Republican.

The question is, does the state have the right to take someone's life? Under what conditions? Can the state apply justice expediently, and can the state apply justice accurately?

In too many death-penalty cases, the state cannot apply justice correctly; and the state's right to end the life of its citizens in every case is heavliy debatable.

I recognize that the death penalty was onced banned by the supreme court but I don't think there is really any debate regarding the state's ability to take lives. The state has been taking lives before its official founding as well as after, immediately after the signing of the constitution. I think to claim it has no right is to "discover" this in the constitution.
The question of the death penalty is not a constitutional one but rather a political one. You may find this absurd, and probably barbaric, but the use of the death penalty ultimately comes down to "Does it feel good to penalize people with death?"


It's, if anything, a message to young teenagers who live in dangerous neighborhoods to arm themselves. There's nothing quite like a weapon as one's best defense against a similar weapon.
This is a good lesson to learn. But, as was learned in Waco Texas, the government always has BIGGER weapons and you CAN'T defend against those.

[and1grad]

Let me quote you:
"Killing someone makes you a murderer. You can convince yourself that you're better but you're just another monster."

I offered that that was too much a generalization. I claimed that there was gray area in killing people and you were not immediately convinced. The example I used was thoroughly valid though I do like your use of "tangent"- a good math term. And yes, with your original definition of murder, gravity could muder people.

Glad to see you becoming open minded regarding killing people; that not all killing is murder.
Becoming open minded? Anybody reading that post knew exactly what I meant. Just b/c you want to start a ridiculous tangent to find some form of argument doesnt mean I've changed my mind on anything. Plus, I wasnt the one who argued with you over your "gray area." That would have been a waste of my time.

[Deadend]

"We're" not saying that all government is corrupt. "We're" saying that the powers of government become corrupted when expanded beyond their original means.

Original meaning when? The founding of the US? What is the "original means of government"? That sounds like archeology.

[Deadend]

Becoming open minded? Anybody reading that post knew exactly what I meant. Just b/c you want to start a ridiculous tangent to find some form of argument doesnt mean I've changed my mind on anything. Plus, I wasnt the one who argued with you over your "gray area." That would have been a waste of my time.

I believe the words you're looking for are "straw man"

[MrAnonymous]

You defend yourself with education and by becoming a contributing member of society. You defend yourself by helping show kids in the community that they can belong in something besides a gang. You defend yourself by giving kids someone to look up to. You defend yourself by showing that someone gives a damn and that the world isnt hopeless.

You dont defend yourself by picking up a gun.

Let me paraquote Chris Rock: "We use guns so that we don't need to lift weights and study Kung Fu."

I love the scene from Indiana Jones where Indy casually shoots the guy waving the swords around. People educate themselves so they develop A-Bombs so they don't have to use guns. It's educated people that devise these tools. If smart people didn't devise this stuff, lions would be still the kings.

You teach kids that they never know who is carrying what, and that they don't know who is capable of what so if they find living interesting, they be respectful and don't provide others excuses to be stupid. In addition, you let them know that others have firepower that they can't conceive of and could never obtain.

You protect yourself by ensuring that your democratically elected state upon which you have influence has that firepower.

[MrAnonymous]

Becoming open minded? Anybody reading that post knew exactly what I meant. Just b/c you want to start a ridiculous tangent to find some form of argument doesnt mean I've changed my mind on anything. Plus, I wasnt the one who argued with you over your "gray area." That would have been a waste of my time.

Somebody argued the point over the gray area and my example was relevant to it. My tangent was not ridiculous because it was not as obvious to someone else as it is seemingly to you. A waste of your time? You had no problem addressing it...

[wordsmith]

You teach kids that they never know who is carrying what, and that they don't know who is capable of what so if they find living interesting, they be respectful and don't provide others excuses to be stupid. In addition, you let them know that others have firepower that they can't conceive of and could never obtain.

Please tell me you are never having children, working with them, or are EVER in any sort of position to attempt to counsel or influence America's youth.

[Deadend]

Please tell me you are never having children, working with them, or are EVER in any sort of position to attempt to counsel or influence America's youth.

Ya, um, I'll be teaching my kids to respect others because they in turn wish to be respected. Not because they should be living in fear. I wholey fail to see the "freedom" in that. Let alone the benefit to a child's mental health.

[wordsmith]

Come on, Deadend! Perpetuating a cycle of violence is AWESOME!

[Deadend]

Come on, Deadend! Perpetuating a cycle of violence is AWESOME!

Of course, I mean it's protecting yourself, ensuring your own freedom!

Wait a minute, I'm lost, we're way far off the OP now..... was starting the cribs a good thing or a bad thing?

[MrAnonymous]

Please tell me you are never having children, working with them, or are EVER in any sort of position to attempt to counsel or influence America's youth.

Beyond your simplistic and needlessly insulting dismissal, you disagree?

Another way of saying this is to be respectful. This seems to be lost on you. I think you're an example of the cause of the violence in which we speak.

[wordsmith]

Ha, yeah, the person who said that killing is wrong, bottom line...I'm clearly a mad dog. Leash me now.

[Deadend]

Except that you're not describing respect at all. You're describing fear.

[and1grad]

Beyond your simplistic and needlessly insulting dismissal, you disagree?

Another way of saying this is to be respectful. This seems to be lost on you. I think you're an example of the cause of the violence in which we speak.
LOL! OMG! BEST. POST. EVER!!

[MrAnonymous]

Except that you're not describing respect at all. You're describing fear.

I'm describing the practical aspect of it. Respect involves a certain amount of fear. Many people "respect" the law because of its ability to punish, not because to follow it is right by itself.

Do you think respect is completely void of fear?

I respect bears. I fear their ability to harm me and thus do not taunt them. If they want to eat something, even if it's mine, I respect the bear and let it eat.

You find this use of "respect" incorrect?

[wordsmith]

I respect bears. I fear their ability to harm me and thus do not taunt them. If they want to eat something, even if it's mine, I respect the bear and let it eat.

Yeah, if you wanna equate human beings with animalistic behavior rather than treat them as if they're capable of functioning above that level.

[WeirdBrake]

Beyond your simplistic and needlessly insulting dismissal, you disagree?

Another way of saying this is to be respectful. This seems to be lost on you. I think you're an example of the cause of the violence in which we speak.

Huh???? What are you TALKING about? I'm honestly curious how Jess is an example of the cause of violence. I'm waiting anxiously to hear this one. I really am.

[Deadend]

I'm describing the practical aspect of it. Respect involves a certain amount of fear. Many people "respect" the law because of its ability to punish, not because to follow it is right by itself.

First of all that's completley false on its face. Most people obey the law out of a sense of rightness and justice. Common, those who only fear getting caught are the ones that get away with tons of petty crimes. That's hardly "respect" just because they're not getting away with the larger crimes they can't.


Do you think respect is completely void of fear?

I respect bears. I fear their ability to harm me and thus do not taunt them. If they want to eat something, even if it's mine, I respect the bear and let it eat.

You find this use of "respect" incorrect?

You're switching meanings. Ya people fear bears. People also shot bears before conservation laws. We seak to destory what we fear. We seek to imitate what we respect. Just because "don't fuck with it" might be common to them both doesn't mean they're the same thing.

I "respect" Dr. David Suzuki for his fine work. Yes that is completely void of fear.

[wordsmith]

When you figure it out, can you please CC it to the inner city youth I used to mentor, and the pacifist congregation I used to work for?? Please??? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know I'm a propegator of violence.

[WeirdBrake]

When you figure it out, can you please CC it to the inner city youth I used to mentor, and the pacifist congregation I used to work for?? Please??? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know I'm a propegator of violence.

Weren't you the leader of that journalistic terrorist group? :p

[MrAnonymous]

Yeah, if you wanna equate human beings with animalistic behavior rather than treat them as if they're capable of functioning above that level.

You wish to claim that human beings don't possess animalistic behavior? Are you describing your little world again? I'm not sure what your point is...

[wordsmith]

Didn't you know Kum-Ba-Ya, when played backward, sounds like "kill the government!!!!!!"

[wordsmith]

You wish to claim that human beings don't possess animalistic behavior? Are you describing your little world again? I'm not sure what your point is...

Out of curiosity, I'd actually like to see YOU take a stab at describing "my little world," since you've referred to it twice now, without really evidencing one ounce of understanding of anything I'm talking about.

[WeirdBrake]

You wish to claim that human beings don't possess animalistic behavior? Are you describing your little world again? I'm not sure what your point is...

Alright there, tiger, you're gonna wanna take the attitude down a notch or two or three or four hundred thousand. That is, if you value participating on this board.

[MrAnonymous]

First of all that's completley false on its face. Most people obey the law out of a sense of rightness and justice. Come on, those who only fear getting caught are the ones that get away with tons of petty crimes. That's hardly "respect" just because they're not getting away with the larger crimes they can't.


I fear getting my taxes wrong. If there was no chance for an audit, for punishment, I would be more than happy to say "Well, we all mistakes, nobody is perfect" and just blast through them. I don't think fear as a component of respect is limited to petty crimes. Speak to Martha Stuart. You thoroughly verify and validate your taxes because of your sense of rightness and justice? I "respect" the tax system.


You're switching meanings. Ya people fear bears. People also shot bears before conservation laws. We seak to destory what we fear. We seek to imitate what we respect. Just because "don't fuck with it" might be common to them both doesn't mean they're the same thing.


I'm not switching meanings. I am awed by and fear bears. I think those are both aspects of "respect" and take into account their needs. You don't respect animals?

A better definition, because of that fear and awe, I am very concientous of my behavior around them. Is that switching meanings? It takes into account your fine Dr. Suzuki as well. I fear people whom I respect having a low opinion of me.

[MrAnonymous]

Alright there, tiger, you're gonna wanna take the attitude down a notch or two or three or four hundred thousand. That is, if you value participating on this board.

I get you... but to recognize that words were not said in isolation:

Originally Posted by wordsmith
Please tell me you are never having children, working with them, or are EVER in any sort of position to attempt to counsel or influence America's youth.

I can't think of a way to be more insulting. I think I fairly reserved compared to that.

[lilyflower]

I fear getting my taxes wrong. If there was no chance for an audit, for punishment, I would be more than happy to say "Well, we all mistakes, nobody is perfect" and just blast through them. I don't think fear as a component of respect is limited to petty crimes. Speak to Martha Stuart. You thoroughly verify and validate your taxes because of your sense of rightness and justice? I "respect" the tax system.

Martha STEWART went to prison for insider trading - which has NOTHING to do with the federal tax code (it's a securities issue, right, WB?)

I'm not switching meanings. I am awed by and fear bears. I think those are both aspects of "respect" and take into account their needs. You don't respect animals?.

Respect is not the same thing as fear. I have no reason to fear a newborn kitten but I respect it enough not to blow it's head off with a 45.

[wordsmith]

I get you... but to recognize that words were not said in isolation:

Originally Posted by wordsmith
Please tell me you are never having children, working with them, or are EVER in any sort of position to attempt to counsel or influence America's youth.

I can't think of a way to be more insulting. I think I fairly reserved compared to that.

Please. You posted that you believe in teaching children respect through fear...Having spent a good deal of my adult life working with at-risk kids, for whom being raised in a culture of fear has disastrous consequences, that insults ME and everything I stand for.

[MrAnonymous]

Martha STEWART went to prison for insider trading - which has NOTHING to do with the federal tax code (it's a securities issue, right, WB?)


Martha Stewart went to prison for lying and misleading the feds. It was the cover up, not the actual crime.


Respect is not the same thing as fear. I have no reason to fear a newborn kitten but I respect it enough not to blow it's head off with a 45.
[/QUOTE]

This is a good point... If you push me, I can relay fear into this situation but... the word "fear" might not be best to convey the situation.

What's your definition of respect?

[MrAnonymous]

Please. You posted that you believe in teaching children respect through fear...Having spent a good deal of my adult life working with at-risk kids, for whom being raised in a culture of fear has disastrous consequences, that insults ME and everything I stand for.

I said fear was a component of respect, not fear as a way to gain respect.
You need to stop finding ways to be insulted.

[lilyflower]

Martha Stewart went to prison for lying and misleading the feds. It was the cover up, not the actual crime.

No, she went to prison because insider trading is illegal under the laws passed to reform the stock market after the crash of 1939. WB or lawyagirl can tell you the details of what the law actually IS but the thing with Martha Stewart is that she found out ahead of time that ImClone (a biotech company) had their cancer drug not approved by the FDA (meaning no sales, no big profit and a pretty sizeable loss for the company). She found this out BEFORE it became public knowledge and sold her shares accordingly so she wouldn't lose money. That is illegal. Just as it would be illegal for me (as the legal department at work reminds me constantly) to use my insider information to make stock transactions that benefit me before the information becomes public.


This is a good point... If you push me, I can relay fear into this situation but... the word "fear" might not be best to convey the situation.

What's your definition of respect?

Respect is NOT based on fear - they are two completely separate entities. You're working on the assumption here that fear of something implies respect for it, in essence you're saying that respect is only secondary to a greater principle of fear. While fear is easily one of the strongest motivators for any sentient being, it is NOT the same as respect. Respect is an independent concept meaning that you essentially will not mistreat someone or something BECAUSE it has some sort of inherent worth. For example, it is possible to respect the environment and want to recycle. That's NOT the same as if you recycle say because you're inherently fearful that if you don't do so global warming will increase. It is entirely possible to respect something you have no fear of. A good example of this with people would be the severely disabled (such as someone who has extreme cognitive or physical disability to the point where any sort of normal functioning is lost.) Most rational beings would not FEAR such a person. However, having RESPECT for that person means that you would hope that said person is not left to say, rot in a pile of their own feces or forced to undergo unneccessary suffering and torment.

[wordsmith]

I said fear was a component of respect, not fear as a way to gain respect.
You need to stop finding ways to be insulted.

Respect is built around valuing someone. Not being afraid of what will happen to you if you don't.

[WeirdBrake]

Respect is NOT based on fear - they are two completely separate entities. You're working on the assumption here that fear of something implies respect for it, in essence you're saying that respect is only secondary to a greater principle of fear. While fear is easily one of the strongest motivators for any sentient being, it is NOT the same as respect. Respect is an independent concept meaning that you essentially will not mistreat someone or something BECAUSE it has some sort of inherent worth. For example, it is possible to respect the environment and want to recycle. That's NOT the same as if you recycle say because you're inherently fearful that if you don't do so global warming will increase. It is entirely possible to respect something you have no fear of. A good example of this with people would be the severely disabled (such as someone who has extreme cognitive or physical disability to the point where any sort of normal functioning is lost.) Most rational beings would not FEAR such a person. However, having RESPECT for that person means that you would hope that said person is not left to say, rot in a pile of their own feces or forced to undergo unneccessary suffering and torment.

This is an awesome point! :razz: I sense a philosophically trained mind at work. ;)

Martha STEWART went to prison for insider trading - which has NOTHING to do with the federal tax code (it's a securities issue, right, WB?)

True (although technically she went to prison for obstruction of justice-- lying to the gov't). But you're right. It had nothing to do with taxes.

[WeirdBrake]

I'm still waiting to hear how Jess is contributing to the violence problem. Is she engineering her newspaper so as to maximize papercuts?

[wordsmith]

My favorite part is that I once worked specifically to keep kids AWAY from gang affiliation. So I'm curious to see how I'm such a contributor to a society of violence, as well. :rolleyes:

[lilyflower]

This is an awesome point! :razz: I sense a philosophically trained mind at work. ;)

Ahh, arguing about definitions - that's what philosophy majors do best!

True (although technically she went to prison for obstruction of justice-- lying to the gov't). But you're right. It had nothing to do with taxes.

Ahh, okay, but yeah the IRS was nowhere involved and she lied while she was being investigated for securities fraud. (That is what it's called, right?)

[lilyflower]

I'm still waiting to hear how Jess is contributing to the violence problem. Is she engineering her newspaper so as to maximize papercuts?

Maybe she's training an army of rogue newsboys with a ton of rotten fruit and perfect aim. (Okay, no one will get that joke but me)

[MrAnonymous]

No, she went to prison because insider trading is illegal under the laws passed to reform the stock market after the crash of 1939. WB or lawyagirl can tell you the details of what the law actually IS but the thing with Martha Stewart is that she found out ahead of time that ImClone (a biotech company) had their cancer drug not approved by the FDA (meaning no sales, no big profit and a pretty sizeable loss for the company). She found this out BEFORE it became public knowledge and sold her shares accordingly so she wouldn't lose money. That is illegal. Just as it would be illegal for me (as the legal department at work reminds me constantly) to use my insider information to make stock transactions that benefit me before the information becomes public...

My source is: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/05/stewart.main/

"Stewart, 62, was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements."

I'll let WB explain what the conspiracy charge is. The other charges relate to the coverup of the deeds you describe. She was not acually found guilty of those deeds- just their cover up.


Respect is NOT based on fear - they are two completely separate entities. You're working on the assumption here that fear of something implies respect for it, in essence you're saying that respect is only secondary to a greater principle of fear. While fear is easily one of the strongest motivators for any sentient being, it is NOT the same as respect. Respect is an independent concept meaning that you essentially will not mistreat someone or something BECAUSE it has some sort of inherent worth. For example, it is possible to respect the environment and want to recycle. That's NOT the same as if you recycle say because you're inherently fearful that if you don't do so global warming will increase. It is entirely possible to respect something you have no fear of. A good example of this with people would be the severely disabled (such as someone who has extreme cognitive or physical disability to the point where any sort of normal functioning is lost.) Most rational beings would not FEAR such a person. However, having RESPECT for that person means that you would hope that said person is not left to say, rot in a pile of their own feces or forced to undergo unneccessary suffering and torment.

I see what you are saying and I don't think I'm prepared to say that you're wrong.

The extreme example: Does God respect humanity if he could have no fear of it? I could easily say he cares for humanity, but I am stuck if he respects us.

I almost see caring as going down the ladder whereas respect as going upward.

[WeirdBrake]

I'll let WB explain what the conspiracy charge is.

No thanks. :)

[WeirdBrake]

Has anyone else noticed that we went from the death penalty to Martha Stewart?

[lilyflower]

My source is: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/05/stewart.main/

"Stewart, 62, was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements."

I'll let WB explain what the conspiracy charge is. The other charges relate to the coverup of the deeds you describe. She was not acually found guilty of those deeds- just their cover up.

That still has NOTHING to do with the IRS - what I called you on in the first place.

I see what you are saying and I don't think I'm prepared to say that you're wrong.

The extreme example: Does God respect humanity if he could have no fear of it? I could easily say he cares for humanity, but I am stuck if he respects us.

Whoa, who says there IS a God? And why are you taking the argument over the difference between fear and respect into religion? Also, what the HELL? God could FEAR humanity? God, an omnipotent omnisecent being can fear ME a freaking 25 year old assistant scientist? If that's what you're saying, then you completely invalidate the God is an omnipotent omnisecent being statement. And therefore, we're back to my first statement in this paragraph "who says there IS a God"

I almost see caring as going down the ladder whereas respect as going upward.

You don't respect the people you care about? You can only care about people you have no respect for? You may be right on this personally for you, but if so I actually feel pity for you.

[wordsmith]

I see we still haven't tackled my personal responsibility in perpetuating the cycle of violence, though. Dealing w/ Martha must be easier.

[lilyflower]

I see we still haven't tackled my personal responsibility in perpetuating the cycle of violence, though. Dealing w/ Martha must be easier.

Well, he's not sure whether he looks down on you enough to care about you or fears you enough to respect you. :lol:

[old_school_soul]

The problem I have with abolishing the death penalty - and let's use the Williams case as an example - is this: First, the families of the victims got screwed over when they lost their loved ones. Then, the system screws them over again by making them pay - thru taxes - to keep Williams alive in jail year after year. Making sure he gets a roof over his head, 3 meals a day, free medical care if he gets sick, etc. The death penalty makes sense not only as a moral deterrent but also economically.

This argument is totally baseless and ignorant of the truth.

1) There are families of muder victims that don't want the muderer executed.
2) The cost of execution is HIGHER than life in prison, often more than TWO TIMES as much. The latest stats I read were ~ " ...cost of executing a prisoner in Florida averages about $3.2 million, mostly in trial costs. Keeping that same person in prison for life costs only about $600,000..."
3) In California:

"California spends an additional $114 million per year to keep its capital punishment system. This same money would pay for:

* 1,500 additional law enforcement officers ($77,000 per year, California average) or
* 3,800 new, fully-equipped patrol cars annually ($30,000 each) or
* 38,000 more people getting into alcohol and drug treatment annually ($3,000 each).
"

[RudeGirl]

Absolutely. Appeals costs alone make execution much more expensive.

I'd like to add that, much as I come across as a Libertoonian gun nut, I think there is room for reasonable and judicious debate on this topic.

It makes sense that when people live in an economically depressed area with few real job opportunities, the underground economy and/or gang activity seems like a more promising alternative. Meaningful work and enriching leisure-time activites go a long way towards improving one's life.

[MrAnonymous]

I see we still haven't tackled my personal responsibility in perpetuating the cycle of violence, though. Dealing w/ Martha must be easier.

If everyone were so graceful with their language to each other as you are (see above), yes, I would think we would live in a fairly violent world indeed.

[MrAnonymous]

That still has NOTHING to do with the IRS - what I called you on in the first place.

My apologies, I couldn't find your reference to the IRS. On Martha, WB corrected you before I could.


Whoa, who says there IS a God? And why are you taking the argument over the difference between fear and respect into religion? Also, what the HELL? God could FEAR humanity? God, an omnipotent omnisecent being can fear ME a freaking 25 year old assistant scientist? If that's what you're saying, then you completely invalidate the God is an omnipotent omnisecent being statement. And therefore, we're back to my first statement in this paragraph "who says there IS a God"


I assumed a god of all power who, based on having "power above anything else", could not fear anything. Didn't meant to insult your sensitivities to suggest that he might exist.


You don't respect the people you care about? You can only care about people you have no respect for? You may be right on this personally for you, but if so I actually feel pity for you.


Hmmm... Yeah, I might have gone too far with the definition of respect having fear. I tend to think "respect" is one that a student has for their teacher and not the other way around... I think you are right regardless- the notion of fear is pushing it. The idea of both fearing something and respecting something is not redundant. I was... wrong.

[WeirdBrake]

If everyone were so graceful with their language to each other as you are (see above), yes, I would think we would live in a fairly violent world indeed.

Huh?????????????? What does this mean? Does this make the slightest bit of sense to anyone else? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??????

[wordsmith]

Oh, sweet Jesus. This again?

[Winter Storm]

Oh, sweet Jesus. This again?

As embressezla would write, *headdesk* :)