patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Banning DDT was never a liberal cause. It was an environmentalist cause. If you cannot tell the difference, then you are an idiot.

Hmmm......you just vomited out several comments on this thread saying how Conservatives want people to die from pollution and hence are not environmentalists.

Dan8267 says

The anti-vaccination movement is not a liberal movement. I'm a liberal and I'm for requiring vaccinations by law. As most liberals are intelligent, they support vaccination.

The hell they do.

Liberals like RFK are leading the anti-vaccination charge.
http://time.com/3012797/vaccine-rfk-jr-thimerosal/

The highest clusters of non-vaccinated children on in ultra-liberal communities in California like Marin and Santa Monica.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... al-mapped/Dan8267 says

Even alerting the American public and issuing an executive order stating that passengers would not be held criminally responsible for taking on hijackers would have been enough.

Love it! Bush should have told Americans to PROFILE and be on the lookout for suspicious Muslims on airplanes and beat the shit out of them if they stay in the toilet too long.

Stop being such a hack Dan.

socal2 says

Hmmm......you just vomited out several comments on this thread saying how Conservatives want people to die from pollution and hence are not environmentalists.

Yes, conservatives are pro-polluters because they are greedy fucks. However, environmentalism and liberalism aren't the same thing.

socal2 says

Liberals like RFK are leading the anti-vaccination charge.

You are confusing the left with liberals because, once again, you are a dumb ass. You are also mistaking one person on the left as representing the whole, again, because you are a dumb ass.

Here's the real evidence. From a Pew Research poll

According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hold overwhelmingly similar views on climate change, evolution, genetically modified foods and vaccines. They almost all believe that humans are causing climate change (87 percent), evolution is real (98 percent), genetically modified food is safe (88 percent) and vaccines should be mandatory (86 percent).

This poll clearly shows that Democrats support vaccinations more than Republicans. Now most Democrats aren't liberals, but all Republicans are batshit crazy conservatives. Democrats are basically everyone who's not batshit crazy enough to be in the Republican party and aren't independents.

Scientists tend to be
1. Either atheist or agnostic
2. Highly educated.
3. Very liberal

As such, you can see where liberals really fall on this scale. The one place were Democrats are worse than Republicans is on GMOs, but it's not the liberals that are against them, at least not for health reasons.

Once again, facts are a bitch. Aren't they?

socal2 says

Love it! Bush should have told Americans to PROFILE and be on the lookout for suspicious Muslims on airplanes and beat the shit out of them if they stay in the toilet too long.

A clear misrepresentation of what I said. Only people with weak positions resort to Straw Men.

I love how Dan thinks he can separate Leftist from Liberals from Progs from Democrats to deflect away criticism. But at the same time, ALL conservatives are Republican dirt-bags wanting to kill people with their greed.

Regardless of polling data. Anti-vaccination ACTIONS in terms of advocacy and the act of not vaccinating one's child can be found largely on the Left.

Dan8267 says

Boston did the right thing by bringing this scumbag into custody alive to stand trial before the city and the world

I agree with this.

But as for executing him versus not ? My vote would be for killing him. I don't see that being a martyr for the cause entices others to be terrorists. Actually, the mentality of Islamic terrorists is such that I don't think they are likely to respect us more for not executing him. Possibly they respect us less.

Implicit in their actions is that they think violence sends the strongest message of all. It is complicated, because I think we should be trying to set non violent examples in many ways, and we should do all we can to show them that we do not deserve terrorist acts. But when they do commit terrorism against us ? We have to respond in kind. That's where trying to lead by example ends.

That's my opinion anyway. But then I am also not generally opposed to the death penalty for heinous crimes, as long as there is 100% certainty behind the conviction.

There are people that have adjusted to prison life, and don't find it all that much worse than having to make it out in the world. Maybe in some cases, they even find it to be better. For such a person, say who has been in prison and is now out, life in prison is simply not a severe enough penalty for murder. Compassion is a good thing, but the logic here is undeniable. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as a person who finds prison life not much worse than life out in the free world.

zzyzzx says

Why is this guy still alive???

Damn libruls?

Dan8267 says

Here's the real evidence. From a Pew Research poll

According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hold overwhelmingly similar views on climate change, evolution, genetically modified foods and vaccines. They almost all believe that humans are causing climate change (87 percent), evolution is real (98 percent), genetically modified food is safe (88 percent) and vaccines should be mandatory (86 percent).

2% of scientists don't believe in evolution. What kind of scientists are they? Phony scientists.

But then I am also not generally opposed to the death penalty for heinous crimes, as long as there is 100% certainty behind the conviction

Do you have 100% certainty here?

And as they say, two out of three aint bad

R.I.P

Ibragim Todashev

https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-agent-who-killed-boston-bombing-suspects-friend-was-twice-accused-of-police-brutality

Who was murdered in his apartment by an fbi agent who, surprise surprise, has a checkered past

And of course, tamerlan tsarnaev, killed before being taken into custody never got a chance at a fair trial.

Strategist says

zzyzzx says

Why is this guy still alive???

Damn libruls?

Actually, it's because sentencing hasn't happened yet, dummy. He can't be executed at least until he's sentenced. Do you really know so little of our judicial system or are you advocating it's demolishment?

He can't be executed at least until he's sentenced. Do you really know so little of our judicial system or are you advocating it's demolishment?

The former. Go read some of the gangs posts in the slager/scott thread

humanity says

Compassion is a good thing, but the logic here is undeniable. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as a person who finds prison life not much worse than life out in the free world.

I don't see the advantages of executing him. There is no possible harm he can do now, so what purpose does executing him serve? Also, is it ever morally right to kill a human being who posses no threat?

In contrast, I do believe that keeping him alive serving a life sentence does send a message that law and order will not be obstructed by terrorism. It shows that our society is capable of maintaining our values and legal system no matter what chaos is thrown at it.

As for compassion or punishment, the only purposes of sentencing this guy is to... One, make sure he can never harm anyone again, which is accomplished either with the death penalty or life imprisonment. And two, act as a deterrent to future terrorists. As the terrorists are more than willing to die for their cause and go to their imaginary heaven with 72 virgins, the death penalty isn't going to be a deterrent, but 60 years behind bars may be.

So it doesn't matter whether or not Tsarnaev suffers in prison or gets used to it. Either way the deterrent effect is the same, and the purpose of our legal system is not to inflict suffering to fulfill a desire for vengeance. Vengeance and justice are mutually exclusive goals. And the primary goal of our legal system should be to deter and prevent crimes.

I cannot think of a rational reason to base sentencing on the desire for revenge. Sentencing should be based on what is best for society.

The last thing we should do is allow Islamic terrorists to alter what is fundamental to our fairness

While i agree in theory, in practice, there's nothing much fair about our justice system. It's actually the finest stage for our monied inequity

The wealthy/politically privileged can literally buy their way out of anything. The poor get walked out the plank, to be skewered, with their public defender holding their hand

Dan8267 says

Boston did the right thing by bringing this scumbag into custody alive to stand trial before the city and the world.

Dan, it's obvious you don't know the Boston PD every well. If the Feds weren't actively involved in keeping a lease on the local PDs, both brothers would not have survived that day. Realize, they were dubbed 'cop killers', during the overnight chase between the municipalities of Cambridge and Watertown. Many police officers would have emptied every clip into the brothers.

The fact that the guy was taken alive, was what astonished me that day.

As for the death penalty, the problem with it, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the perfect punishment for an imperfect system.

sbh says

I don't think it will affect Islamic terrorists if we kill him or imprison him for life. They embrace an insanity only the religious can occupy in numbers as large as theirs. The Stalins and Pol Pots of history have nothing on the believers.

Good news: You are one step ahead of Dan.
Bad news: 9 steps to go.

sbh says

How 'bout we just let our jury system decide his fate and let that be our devotion to our laws and ethics? The last thing we should do is allow Islamic terrorists to alter what is fundamental to our fairness. Tactical response is what everyone talks about, but it's an incomplete intellectual reaction to what we find ourselves in. We're dealing with the religious insane, not soldiers.

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us? Our justice system provides too many loopholes to the worst of the worst, thereby endangering all of us.

Rin says

The fact that the guy was taken alive, was what astonished me that day.

I'm glad he was taken alive. They probably questioned him for everything connected to terrorism, and the scumbags who helped him.
He should have been sent to Gitmo and waterboarded, so we know who his accomplices are.
Who cares if the rights of terrorists are violated. Our rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness take precedence.

Strategist says

Rin says

The fact that the guy was taken alive, was what astonished me that day.

I'm glad he was taken alive. They probably questioned him for everything connected to terrorism, and the scumbags who helped him.

He should have been sent to Gitmo and waterboarded, so we know who his accomplices are.

Who cares if the rights of terrorists are violated. Our rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness take precedence.

I think the Feds realized that at some point in time, that he was just an idiot and thus, handed him over to Federal prosecutors.

And thus, this trial is a result of him, not having any meaningful connections to Chechen rebels a/o Al Qaeda operatives. Otherwise, he may have "disappeared" into Gitmo.

Rin says

I think the Feds realized that at some point, that he was just an idiot and thus, handed him over to Federal prosecutors.

And thus, this trial is a result of him, not having any meaningful connections to Chechen rebels or Al Qaeda operatives. Otherwise, he may have "disappeared" into Gitmo.

I would agree. But there were individuals and scumbags that helped them. Every one of them must be tracked down, and appropriately dealt with.

For all the conspiracy stuff surrounding this event, im surprised that our resident conspiracy guy, dropped the ball completely.

Its as if bgamall is a plant, who's supposed to make anyone asking questions about the "official " story, look like a nut job.

https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-agent-who-killed-boston-bombing-suspects-friend-was-twice-accused-of-police-brutality

The murder of the friend of the suspects, on the other side of the country, sure smells fishy. The whole thing kinda stinks. Yet bgamall took the stance, that the bombing didn't even happen. The whole thing was faked, I don't know I have trouble reading all his posts.

Rin says

As for the death penalty, the problem with it, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the perfect punishment for an imperfect system.

This is a good point. And as we know, there have been more than a few innocent people executed in this country, even in modern times.

But then I weigh that against the harm that can come to society due to:

humanity says

There are people that have adjusted to prison life, and don't find it all that much worse than having to make it out in the world. Maybe in some cases, they even find it to be better. For such a person, say who has been in prison and is now out, life in prison is simply not a severe enough penalty for murder.

AS life becomes even more difficult for the poor, and the emotionally disabled, life in prison is going to seem not so bad. IT simply is not a severe enough consequence for murder. It's not about vengeance. It's about deterrence.

sbh says

How 'bout we just let our jury system decide his fate and let that be our devotion to our laws and ethics?

The jury has made it's decision, he's guilty. But it's up to the judge to sentence.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

I don't see

Dan8267 says

I cannot think

But you sure can spew some bullshit...

Is it psychologically impossible for a pathological liar like you to quote someone accurately? Is this the result of being dropped repeatedly as a baby?

Rin says

Dan, it's obvious you don't know the Boston PD every well. If the Feds weren't actively involved in keeping a lease on the local PDs, both brothers would not have survived that day. Realize, they were dubbed 'cop killers', during the overnight chase between the municipalities of Cambridge and Watertown. Many police officers would have emptied every clip into the brothers.

True. I stand corrected on that. Police will choose to kill a cop killer rather than bring him to court. They don't want a jury that might let him go make the decision of his guilt.

Strategist says

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us?

Because we're the good guys, or at least want to be.

Rin says

I think the Feds realized that at some point in time, that he was just an idiot and thus, handed him over to Federal prosecutors.

Probably early on. Even their uncle called them losers.

https://www.a6_LQEPZgy8

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us?

Because we're the good guys, or at least want to be.

That's the trouble with us. We are being good to the wrong people.
Take the example of Saddam Hussein when he was in power. He kept the religious extremists at bay by abusing their human rights, shooting them on sight, throwing them prison without trial, and basically being as bad as them. When we started enforcing the "nice guy" and fair rules in Iraq, violence went through the roof. They started killing each other.
Our way does not work. It makes things worse. The cold blooded way of no questions asked dictatorship is what works.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

I don't see

Dan8267 says

I cannot think

But you sure can spew some bullshit...

Is it psychologically impossible for a pathological liar like you to quote someone accurately?

Those are your accurate quotes from your post.... Duh....

Really? Let's examine that, you psychopath.

Misquote 1: "I don't see"
Actual quote: "I don't see the advantages of executing him.

Misquote 2: "I cannot think"
Actual quote: "I cannot think of a rational reason to base sentencing on the desire for revenge."

In both cases, the misquoted statement means something completely different and irrelevant to the actual statement made by me. Simply copying individual words out of text, but not copying the entire sentence is not a form of accurately quoting someone. You are demonstrating pathological lying and trying to deceive an audience you think is as dumb as the Fox News audience. However, no one is fooling for your childish and crude tricks, and every time you double down on stupidity, you make yourself and other conservatives look like idiots.

What makes you a pathological liar is that your lies are so transparent, yet you still think you can get away with them. Perhaps years of listing to transparent lies from conservative media has caused you to think that everyone is as stupid as those who listen to conservative propaganda. In any case, you and those like you are quite pathetic.

There you go again, doubling down on stupidity when you're caught deliberately misquoting a person.

Put him in general population, let the inmates finish him off. Best of both worlds. Worked beautifully with Dahmer.

lakermania says

Put him in general population, let the inmates finish him off. Best of both worlds. Worked beautifully with Dahmer.

I believe that this is the reason why Mark Chapman is still alive today. He's separated from the general prison population, living in you might say is a private study hall.

There were many Beatles fans, who would have off'ed this guy, if they had a chance. I suspect that within 2 years of the prison general population, he'd be a dead man.

lakermania says

Put him in general population, let the inmates finish him off. Best of both worlds. Worked beautifully with Dahmer.

Morally equivalent to executing using torture, but with additional cowardice of not being the one doing the dirty dead.

Again, I ask what is the rational justification for murdering someone who is imprisoned for life in a maximum security prison and cannot harm anyone else again? To murder to prevent someone from murdering or harming another may be justified, but when that person is not a threat and cannot be anymore, what is the rational justification for taking a human life?

If the justification is revenge, how is revenge rational in this situation? Setting aside the moral issue, what is the practical advantage of revenge against someone serving a life sentence without possibility of parole? How does society benefit? How do the victims or their families benefit?

lakermania says

let the inmates finish him off

If he were put into a Massachusetts prison, like Walpole or Lancaster, he'd be done very fast in the general population.

Dan8267 says

Morally equivalent to executing using torture, but with additional cowardice of not being the one doing the dirty dead.

Again, I ask what is the rational justification for murdering someone who is imprisoned for life in a maximum security prison and cannot harm anyone else again? To murder to prevent someone from murdering or harming another may be justified, but when that person is not a threat and cannot be anymore, what is the rational justification for taking a human life?

If the justification is revenge, how is revenge rational in this situation? Setting aside the moral issue, what is the practical advantage of revenge against someone serving a life sentence without possibility of parole? How does society benefit? How do the victims or their families benefit?

The justification is to set an example to other potential murderers.

sbh says

Strategist says

Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us?

Because fairness is more important than your personal fear. That's the thing about form, principle and concept: they transcend the personal. Black people fear that white cops want to kill them. Do you think they should simply kill white cops? Torture white cops? All they need is to have fear, and they have met your burden of justification. I'm not going to respond to anything you might say further because on this matter you are as insane as bgamall. So go ahead and repeat yourself, starting with "I don't care about principle...."

You guys are so sensitive. Get over it.

Dan8267 says

additional cowardice of not being the one doing the dirty dead

Dan, have you not lived through the cold war? Many of the US's actions were done through proxy. According to the rules of our society, prim and proper ppl don't use excessive force or subterfuge.

Dan8267 says

what is the practical advantage of revenge against someone serving a life sentence without possibility of parole? How does society benefit? How do the victims or their families benefit?

Family members know that this person is off the earth, literally, instead of imagining him running a terrorist recruiting ring out of prison, like a lot of mafioso types do, at present, for drugs and money launderings.

And then, what stops him of getting a chance at parole like Chapman? Right now, it's Yoko Ono, who'd been protesting Chapman's parole for the past three decades. If she wasn't so adamant, chances are, Chapman would be on the streets. Instead, it's his relative solitary confinement, which is saving him from angry Beatles fans in the general prison population.

Concerning Mark Chapman, considering that the man is a total and complete loser in society, isn't his current lifestyle, a reward for his mediocrity?

Let's face it, he's living the life of a full time student but in a more cloistered environment with reading and writing materials. If he had any brains or creativity, he could be writing short stories and novels, fashioning himself as the Stephen King of the *Max Slam*, not too distinct from the Birdman of Alcatraz.

And all he had to do, to obtain this lifestyle was to murder a rock icon. How is that justice for the Lennon family or any of his fans?

Strategist says

You guys are so sensitive. Get over it.

If it worked, I'd go for it.

Fact is, we tried blood-feuds (privatized justice) and hangings of pickpockets for centuries.

It didn't work: at public hangings of pickpockets - the crowds were infested with pickpockets.

HydroCabron says

If it worked, I'd go for it.

Except that in this case, the pickpocketers' prison would be fertile training ground for a next generation of pickpocketers, who're originally in jail for general larceny.

So until jail becomes a full solitary confinement experience w/ no reading nor writing materials, then it's basically a full time summer camp for criminals, with the occasional brawls and shower rapes.

Rin says

Except that in this case, the pickpocketers' prison would be fertile training ground

No doubt.

I still have a hard time believing that it would be any worse, since crime tends to vary with age, anyway: past 35, the rate of re-offense dwindles for everything but child molesters and sex murderers.

By the way: crime rates have been dropping consistently for 20 years, and it appears that the demise of leaded gasoline flipped the switch.

HydroCabron says

No doubt.

I still have a hard time believing that it would be any worse, since crime tends to vary with age, anyway: past 35, the rate of re-offense dwindles for everything but child molesters and sex murderers.

Here are the scenarios ...

1) A few generally patriotic types or die-hard Massachusetts native/resident inmates, take him out within his first year or two, out of a sense of justice or revenge.

2) The born-again Muslims in prison are inspired by his and his brother's story and want to prop him up as a folk hero, who stood up against the white imperialistic America.

3) In a Mark Chapman-like solitary experience, he fades to black and no one hears about him again.

4) In a Mark Chapman-like solitary experience, he writes the great American novel and becomes a literary hero to others who think like him or his brother.

Thus, 1 and 3 are the best outcomes, 2 & 4, however, made his incarceration, a worse outcome than the death penalty, which BTW, I don't support but not because I don't believe that it fits the crime.

Strategist says

The justification is to set an example to other potential murderers.

Really? Your sole motivation is deterrence, right? Then you'll change your position once I inform you that a plethora of evidence shows that the death penalty has no deterrence and this has been scientifically proven.

The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence
Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs
Panel fails to establish deterrent effect of death penalty
Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder?
No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters

Good summary from the Dartmouth paper above.

Those who defend the deterrent value of the death penalty offer little systematic research to support their view. Instead, they rely on an intuitive feeling that capital punishment should be uniquely effective. When the available evidence doesn't support that conclusion, they argue that the evidence is imperfect. It is. But if there were any substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not.

The fact is that no one decides to not commit a crime because of fear of the death penalty. If a person isn't deterred by the fear of life imprisonment, he's not going to be deterred by the death penalty. This is common sense, but conservative nutjobs just can't get this fact through their brain, which says "Kill the interlopers! Kill them all!"

Of course, if Strategist's motivation was that he thought the death penalty was really a deterrent, he'd change his opinion on it now that it's clear it's not a deterrent. However, Strategist is not going to change his opinion, nor is anyone else in favor of the death penalty. This is because whether or not the death penalty was a deterrent is completely irrelevant to those in favor of it.

Those people are in favor of the death penalty because they like revenge. Revenge makes them feel good. Now I'm not saying that revenge was never useful. Clearly it was back in the Stone Age. Someone took your mate, so you killed him. You eliminated a sexual competitor and probably got your mate back and increased social status. But that was back in the Stone Age. This strategy simply does not work in the modern age where we have courts and 7 billion people on the planet. You cannot eliminate your competitors as there are simply too many of them. So there is no benefit to revenge in the modern age, but there is a far, far greater cost. Being pro-death-penalty is essentially thinking like a caveman in modern times. You're mode of thinking is obsolete and not useful or productive.

So once again, I ask the question. What is the rational benefit of killing someone who permanently imprisoned and cannot threaten anyone again?

The lack of answers to this question leads me to believe that the truth is there is none and the death penalty is all about bloodlust as the posts by the pro-death-penalty users in this thread suggest. But then the question becomes, "Should our legal system serve justice or vengeance?". It cannot serve both.

Dan8267 says

serve justice

How is Mark Chapman's current lifestyle of never having to work for a living, reading and writing whatever he wants, with 3 meals per day, punishment? I'd say that he was rewarded for killing Lennon.

Before, he had to get a job, find an apartment, and yes, make something of a life for himself. Today, he's a celebrity killer, who's been able to keep Yoko under constant stress, for the fear that someday he may be paroled. And of course, like all assholes looking for parole, he'd also found Jesus during his lonely nights in the study hall. BTW, he gets annual conjugal visits from his Hawaiian wife.

If anything, I feel the punished here are Lennon's family, not Chapman. In society, Chapman's a failure in life. In prison, he's infamous and a celebrity.