Sue U wrote:In your OP you stated that "another reason [you] like South Dakota" is, presumably, that the state has executed a convict. You urged the State of California, in bold capital letters, to execute more than 700 people and to stop "dicking around on what drug to use" in executing "the scum." That sounds to me (and I would suspect, to most people) like you are adamantly in favor of their killing. Were you trying to say something else?
Yeah, let's enforce the laws on the books.
Do you favor enforcing all laws simply because they are "on the books"?
dales wrote:They (the defendants) were tried, were convicted, found guilty, and sentenced to death.
And? There are numerous cases of defendants tried and wrongfully convicted, even of murder. And that is a serious problem even before you get to larger issues like disparate application of the death penalty, the methods of adminsitering the death penalty, what purpose the death penalty accomplishes and whether the State should be in the business of taking life at all.
dales wrote:Many have languished for decades on death row.
So what?
dales wrote:If you dont like CP, vote it out (like some misgudided souls are trying to do in CA).
We did in my state. We formally abolished the death penalty five years ago, and had not executed anyone since 1963.
dales wrote: Until that time I urge the state of California to stop dicking around and get on with it. Many CA voters feel the same way
Why? What is the urgency for killing people who are incarcerated and already removed from society?
Sue U wrote:In your OP you stated that "another reason [you] like South Dakota" is, presumably, that the state has executed a convict. You urged the State of California, in bold capital letters, to execute more than 700 people and to stop "dicking around on what drug to use" in executing "the scum." That sounds to me (and I would suspect, to most people) like you are adamantly in favor of their killing. Were you trying to say something else?
Yeah, let's enforce the laws on the books.
Do you favor enforcing all laws simply because they are "on the books"?
Until those laws can be amended, yes. We are a society of laws, are we not?
dales wrote:They (the defendants) were tried, were convicted, found guilty, and sentenced to death.
And? There are numerous cases of defendants tried and wrongfully convicted, even of murder. And that is a serious problem even before you get to larger issues like disparate application of the death penalty, the methods of adminsitering the death penalty, what purpose the death penalty accomplishes and whether the State should be in the business of taking life at all.
Point taken.
dales wrote:Many have languished for decades on death row.
So what?
Cruel and unusual punishmnet.
dales wrote:If you dont like CP, vote it out (like some misgudided souls are trying to do in CA).
We did in my state. We formally abolished the death penalty five years ago, and had not executed anyone since 1963.
And the same thing could happen in CA if that misguided proposition goes thru. If it does so be it.
dales wrote: Until that time I urge the state of California to stop dicking around and get on with it. Many CA voters feel the same way
Why? What is the urgency for killing people who are incarcerated and already removed from society?
Cost.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
What is the urgency for killing people who are incarcerated and already removed from society?
Well, laying aside the obvious humor in referring to executing convicted murderers who have been on death row for 20-25 years as acting with a sense of "urgency", the obvious answer to that question is because this situation represents a gross thwarting of the administration of justice (justice not only for the murderers, but also for the victims, their families, the communities and the entire state) and makes a complete mockery of the criminal justice system.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for the state of California to have allowed it's appellate system to become so dysfunctional as to create this situation. It's an embarrassment and a disgrace.
There are a number of states in this country who's DP sentencing and appellate procedures have passed Constitutional muster, who are able to Constitutionally safeguard the rights of the convicted murderers, and at the same time see that justice is properly administered in half the time that it currently takes the state of California.
Guinevere wrote:The Black Hills were sacred to the Native American tribes who lived in the area....
Thank you Guinevere for 'splainin'. A lot I didn't know. I am planning to take the motorcycle trip with my dad next year to Sturgis and making the trip to the Black Hills. I see I need to read up more on the area and it's history.
Read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee -- which will give you a lot of the background.
While you are up there, make sure to visit the Badland NP as well as Devil's Tower NM, and do not pass driving through the Pine Ridge Reservation -- which is where the Wounded Knee marker is. It's one of the most beautiful, but useless pieces of land I've ever observed, and the life of the natives who live there is heartbreaking.
If you want to read more about Pine Ridge and the experience there, specifically, On the Rez by Ian Frazier is a great book.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Why do people insist on putting ' every time they see the letter s at the end of a word? It just beat's me.
its.... not it's
whose.... not who's
Try it this way - can you say "it is" (or "it has") in place of "it's"? If not, it's its. Can you say "who is" in place of "who's"? No - then it's "whose".
I can see the death penalty needs a much wider application, never mind a stun gun
ouch ouch
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
The terms whose and who's sound identical, but they perform very different roles in English.
Whose
Whose is the possessive form of who. It means 'belonging to whom'. Whose usually sits before a noun.
Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends.
("Whose" sits before the noun "visit". "Whose" in this example is a relative pronoun.)
Whose bike was expensive?
("Whose" sits before the noun "bike". "Whose" in this example is an interrogative pronoun.)
Carl knows the girl whose phone was stolen.
("Whose" sits before the noun "phone". "Whose" in this example is a relative pronoun.)
Who's
Who's is a contraction of either who is or who has. It has no other uses.
Who's coming to fix the bed?
(who is)
Who's eaten the last muffin?
(who has)
I met the inspector who's delivering tomorrow's briefing.
(who is)
Meade, I can't speak for everyone, but in my post above, "it's" is the contraction of "it is" which requires an apostrophe.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Guinevere wrote:Read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee -- which will give you a lot of the background.
While you are up there, make sure to visit the Badland NP as well as Devil's Tower NM, and do not pass driving through the Pine Ridge Reservation -- which is where the Wounded Knee marker is. It's one of the most beautiful, but useless pieces of land I've ever observed, and the life of the natives who live there is heartbreaking.
If you want to read more about Pine Ridge and the experience there, specifically, On the Rez by Ian Frazier is a great book.
Thanks for all that. Will do some reading and investigating before next years bike rally at Sturgis. Thanks again.
ETA
Don't know how many more long jdistance bike rallys dad has in him (he's 80yo) so I figure we need to do as much as he (or I) can do while there.
Oh I'm not saying don't see it -- but by the time I had gotten to the NM itself, I was so offended by it that I couldn't bring myself to go into the grounds. But I agree, you should see for yourself and judge --not rely on my opinion, fabulous entertainer that I may be
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Why do people insist on putting ' every time they see the letter s at the end of a word? It just beat's me.
its.... not it's
whose.... not who's
Try it this way - can you say "it is" (or "it has") in place of "it's"? If not, it's its. Can you say "who is" in place of "who's"? No - then it's "whose".
I can see the death penalty needs a much wider application, never mind a stun gun
While the Death Penalty should be a viable (sorry for my choice of word) punishment for ultimate crimes (first-degree murder, treason, and such), it is an anachronism that cannot remain within the catalog of acceptable punishments. Although some "Christians" claim that the DP is morally indefensible, they are wrong. The late J.C. utilized the DP to redeem mankind, eh?
The DP is unaceptable because:
LIberal lawyers and judges have developed effective strategies to delay implementation for GENERATIONS (to wit, the situation in California), thus rendering it a meaningless gesture. It is worse than meaningless; it exposes the criminal justice system to well-deserved ridicule. Because of "our" inability to execute those whom we desire to execute, in most places not beginning with "Tex" most executions are more or less voluntary of late, as it was there in S.D.
The implementation is so irregular and unpredictable that one might almost say it is a random punishment, and not fair to anyone.
States waste millions of dollars going through the charade of endless appeals and re-appeals through state and federal courts, wasting untold resources on a quest that is usually futile, and serves no good purpose. Unfortunately, this administrative cost is much greater than the irritating cost of keeping the bastards alive.
The on-again-and-off again execution dates cause untold grief for the families of the victims...again, for no good purpose.
Trials are conducted by humans, and although I personally believe that the number of factually innocent people who have been executed is sub-microscopic, the possibility always exists, and this would be an irreversible mistake.
O.J. Simpson. How can California (or any other state) execute anyone while OJS remains above ground? Obviously guilty of a heinous crime, he bought his way to freedom. This is an absolute indictment of the entire criminal justice system because, although California is goofy, the same thing could happen anywhere.
The ACLU uses it to raise money.
There's more, but that's enough. Those who are nominally on "death row" should be segreagated from other prisoners for obvious reasons. Maybe the Feds can run a lifer prison facility for the states, for a fee.
Guinevere wrote:Meade, I can't speak for everyone, but in my post above, "it's" is the contraction of "it is" which requires an apostrophe.
Quite right - I didn't cavill at your excellent placement of the '
We at airport security thank you and you may proceed to your boarding gate.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Guinevere wrote:Oh I'm not saying don't see it -- but by the time I had gotten to the NM itself, I was so offended by it that I couldn't bring myself to go into the grounds. But I agree, you should see for yourself and judge --not rely on my opinion, fabulous entertainer that I may be
Honest truth, I do want to see it, but riding bikes with my dad will be the greatest part of the adventure. Sure the sights and scenery will be great, but getting this time with my dad (him being 80 and all) will be the best thrill. I do plan on seeing Mt Rushmore and the places you suggested. Dad was there 5 years ago (6 by the time we go) and said it was great. Me, I'm looking forward to teh time together. Somewhere nice and calm and pleasant. We'll get out of Sturgis every morning as soon as possbile. I am not drinking but will enjoy some of the nightlife. But time together is my main goal. Again, thanks
Sorry to hear that dales. And I plan to. I have to work out for about 6 months to be in his shape.
But every moment is precious. We ride bikes together about 4 times a year and the same with snowmobiling, although he has been slacking off the last year or two (although last year there was no snow and I had my personal issues also). Hopefully we get snow this year and me, him and my brother can get out and spend some good times together (I hate the words "quality time"). Times are meant to have fun. And even if I'm not talking to him as he's on his motorcycle or snowmobile and I'm on mine, the smiles exchanged are worth more than anything.
