Remember the executive order for the CDC to study gun violence?

[LDB415]

With scientific methods available there is no longer reason to fear executing the wrong individual. Require DNA evidence confirmed by two labs to impose the death penalty. Require appeals to be completed in a timely manner, perhaps six months to at most twelve months. Limit appeals to two or perhaps three appeals at most. That would mean executions within five years or so of commission of a crime. Executions should be hanging on the courthouse square of the county where the crime was committed. That should be a fairly significant deterrent.

[cal50]

There are a few exceptions to expedient capitol punishment but most take on average +12 years.

You could kill the person faster with a high fat & sodium diet.

 

The only people that went to the front of the execution line are the people dubbed "Volunteers"

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/information-defendants-who-were-executed-1976-and-designated-volunteers

[NickF1011]

With scientific methods available there is no longer reason to fear executing the wrong individual. Require DNA evidence confirmed by two labs to impose the death penalty. Require appeals to be completed in a timely manner, perhaps six months to at most twelve months. Limit appeals to two or perhaps three appeals at most. That would mean executions within five years or so of commission of a crime. Executions should be hanging on the courthouse square of the county where the crime was committed. That should be a fairly significant deterrent.

 

The presence of DNA alone isn't always an indicator of guilt though. Yes, it says you were with the victim (or at the crime scene at least) at some point prior to his/her death, and in many cases that's probably enough to remove all doubt of guilt, but not always.

 

 

 

And then, of course, there's this to contend with now: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18

 

"Nucleix, a Tel-Aviv-based life sciences company, was able to create credible DNA evidence that could be used to finger the wrong person, proof that even genetic evidence can be manipulated (beyond planting a hair or used cigarette) just like other physical traces."

Edited July 16, 2013 by NickF1011

[Langston Hughes]

The presence of DNA alone isn't always an indicator of guilt though. Yes, it says you were with the victim (or at the crime scene at least) at some point prior to his/her death, and in many cases that's probably enough to remove all doubt of guilt, but not always.

 

 

And then, of course, there's this to contend with now: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18

 

"Nucleix, a Tel-Aviv-based life sciences company, was able to create credible DNA evidence that could be used to finger the wrong person, proof that even genetic evidence can be manipulated (beyond planting a hair or used cigarette) just like other physical traces."

 

DNA works great if your not close to the victim before the crime just like fingerprints. But if you have any sort of relationship with the victim there's always a possibility that your DNA and fingerprints are all over the crime scene.

[NickF1011]

DNA works great if your not close to the victim before the crime just like fingerprints.

Eh, even that runs risk of being circumstantial in many cases unless it's in a location with limited access like a person's home or office.

[TomO]

To me it's all about responsibility and accountability. If you do the crime you do the time (significant time for violence and not just a slap on the wrist). If you need medical help for a mental condition get it. If you don't get help and commit a violent crime you should be prepared for an extended stay in a mental institution. Guns are not the only method for violence, so any violent method should receive the same penalty.

[Langston Hughes]

If abstinence is the best way to prevent the unwanted effects of sex, does that qualify for guns to? Should we teach all kids to abstain from guns in order to limit the unwanted effects of guns?

[sullynd]

It seems to work there. How's it going in Chicago, btw?

Illinois does not have the death penalty.

[NickF1011]

If abstinence is the best way to prevent the unwanted effects of sex, does that qualify for guns to? Should we teach all kids to abstain from guns in order to limit the unwanted effects of guns?

They should abstain from using their guns inappropriately. Wouldn't using a gun at a firing range be akin to playing with yourself?

Edited July 22, 2013 by NickF1011

[Langston Hughes]

They should abstain from using their guns inappropriately. Wouldn't using a gun at a firing range be akin to playing with yourself?

 

So they should abstain from having sex without protection then instead of abstaining from having any sexual contact. lol

[NickF1011]

So they should abstain from having sex without protection then instead of abstaining from having any sexual contact. lol

Suffice it to say, it's a bad analogy in any case.

[Langston Hughes]

Suffice it to say, it's a bad analogy in any case.

 

It wasn't meant to be good. You saw the little guy behind it, shaking his head right?

[NickF1011]

It wasn't meant to be good. You saw the little guy behind it, shaking his head right?

It began by associating abstinence in sex with abstinence from guns. Why can't people just look at issues one at a time instead of automatically assuming that since a person holds a particular position on one issue that another position must also be held on a completely separate issue? (ie: if you don't believe in sex before marriage you must also be be a supporter of gun rights -- what does one have to do with the other?)

[FiredMotorCompany]

It began by associating abstinence in sex with abstinence from guns. Why can't people just look at issues one at a time instead of automatically assuming that since a person holds a particular position on one issue that another position must also be held on a completely separate issue? (ie: if you don't believe in sex before marriage you must also be be a supporter of gun rights -- what does one have to do with the other?)

Sometimes the argument is larger than single issues. Freedom isn't defined by every single freedom. Rather, it is unlimited except where government is created to protect those freedoms and protect the individuals from their freedom being infringed upon by others exercising their freedoms.

[Langston Hughes]

It began by associating abstinence in sex with abstinence from guns. Why can't people just look at issues one at a time instead of automatically assuming that since a person holds a particular position on one issue that another position must also be held on a completely separate issue? (ie: if you don't believe in sex before marriage you must also be be a supporter of gun rights -- what does one have to do with the other?)

 

I didn't assume anything. I was just being silly.

[NickF1011]

Sometimes the argument is larger than single issues. Freedom isn't defined by every single freedom. Rather, it is unlimited except where government is created to protect those freedoms and protect the individuals from their freedom being infringed upon by others exercising their freedoms.

But people's definition of individual freedoms varies. You see it as protecting an unborn fetus. Others see it as protecting the rights of the mother. You see it as a right to bear arms. Others see it as protecting the public from harm. There's no all-encompassing "correct" position to have based on a single philosophy.

Edited July 23, 2013 by NickF1011

[FiredMotorCompany]

But people's definition of individual freedoms varies. You see it as protecting an unborn fetus. Others see it as protecting the rights of the mother. You see it as a right to bear arms. Others see it as protecting the public from harm. There's no all-encompassing "correct" position to have based on a single philosophy.

No. Individual freedoms are unlimited except that there are other individuals. What limits to freedom are there to the only man on Earth? Physical ones only.

And as soon as he shares the planet with any other, he is limited by the rights of his fellow man from infringing his rights.

[NickF1011]

No. Individual freedoms are unlimited except that there are other individuals. What limits to freedom are there to the only man on Earth? Physical ones only.

And as soon as he shares the planet with any other, he is limited by the rights of his fellow man from infringing his rights.

But it's still up to interpretation whether or not the rights of another are, in fact, being infringed.

[FiredMotorCompany]

But it's still up to interpretation whether or not the rights of another are, in fact, being infringed.

It's very clear that a woman has a" Choice" to have sex. Then she has a "Choice" to abort the fetus. When does the innocent have a "Choice"?

The adults with a vote get to decide life or death of the voiceless.

It's self-serving murder that would never be tolerated a moment after birth but is a convenience prior.

How can any man claim to love children if they can take such a stand. Innocence beyond debate but expendable. Heartless.

 

I staunchly defend an adults right to have sex and at the same time hold them responsible for the consequences. Isn't that what we consider adulthood?

[NickF1011]

It's very clear that a woman has a" Choice" to have sex. Then she has a "Choice" to abort the fetus. When does the innocent have a "Choice"?

The adults with a vote get to decide life or death of the voiceless.

It's self-serving murder that would never be tolerated a moment after birth but is a convenience prior.

How can any man claim to love children if they can take such a stand. Innocence beyond debate but expendable. Heartless.

 

I staunchly defend an adults right to have sex and at the same time hold them responsible for the consequences. Isn't that what we consider adulthood?

And the courts have interpreted it differently than you. See?

[FiredMotorCompany]

And the courts have interpreted it differently than you. See?

And SCOTUS had reconsidered, modified and superceded prior decisions.

Brown vs. Board of Education is one of the most well known decisions.

[NickF1011]

And SCOTUS had reconsidered, modified and superceded prior decisions.

Brown vs. Board of Education is one of the most well known decisions.

Which only further goes to show that there is no blanket right or wrong ideology.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Which only further goes to show that there is no blanket right or wrong ideology.

I argue differently.

[NickF1011]

I argue differently.

 

The fact that the rule of law has evolved over time demonstrates proof positive that what is right and wrong changes. Conservative and liberal ideologies have evolved right along with it.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

The fact that the rule of law has evolved over time demonstrates proof positive that what is right and wrong changes. Conservative and liberal ideologies have evolved right along with it.

What is right and wrong is eternal. The people and their power struggles may influence the system, but is cold blooded murder ever right? Even if government condones it?

Is theft ever right, even if government is manipulated to legalize it?

What of rape?

What of slavery?

 

Right is right. The hard part is securing and defending it.