The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Based on this single statement, you ask to be believed?
With a sig line like yours?
Sorry, but not me.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Originally posted by GameGeek
I don't think I overestimate juries. Right, wrong or indifferent, the criminal defendant is entitled to a jury of his peers, though. And the death penalty, of course, should never be treated lightly. As has been repeatedly noted in this thread, DP qualitatively different from other sentences. It's a mistake that can't be undone.
Which brings me back to my opposition to the DP - since we can make mistakes, and we have made mistakes, it is better to punish people in ways that can be (partially) undone.
But do you think judges have any less of an "ick reflex" than juries? If the question were purely based on a jury's revulsion, I'd agree. But I don't think it is. Now, the jury may decide on a harsher penalty, rather than a lighter one, based on that ick factor. But that's the case regardless of whether we're talking about a capital case or not.
I think that judges are trained in these matters and probably do have less of an ick factor. They are human, however, which is why it is important to take the DP out of their hands as well as those of the jury, and remove it as an option altogether.
As a practical matter, how do you separate the punitive aspect from the deterrent aspect? Aren't they awfully closely intertwined?
I think that punitive measures should be undertaken with the intent that the measures will lower the probability that the criminal will commit another crime. If punitive measures do not deter the criminal, they are not useful.
Deterrance, as it pertains to deterring other people by making an example of one person, is something I find hard to swallow, especially in the case of the death penalty, where offenders are often psychotic and not particularly likely to be impacted by the execution of other, remote criminals.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Deterrance, as it pertains to deterring other people by making an example of one person, is something I find hard to swallow, especially in the case of the death penalty, where offenders are often psychotic and not particularly likely to be impacted by the execution of other, remote criminals.
I don't see how this can be used to make argument.
In fact, I don't the relevance of deterrance at all.
People run red lights every day. They're aware of the danger. They're aware of the penalty if caught, and yet people continue to run red lights.
Passing through a toll booth and not paying the toll is a crime. The penalty for doing this is clearly posted, and yet people continue to pass through toll booths every day.
Here in Dallas, a woman got what may be the shock of her life, when she was cited for running a toll booth 1500 times. Poor deterrance.
Punishment is the issue.
As I said about the trial, the defense calls the shots.
A death penalty is immediately up for appeal, and in fact may be appealled many times.
We give murderers these rights.
The victim's only right is that the defendant is put on trial.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Originally posted by Cyclotron
I think that punitive measures should be undertaken with the intent that the measures will lower the probability that the criminal will commit another crime. If punitive measures do not deter the criminal, they are not useful.
By this, I assume that you mean will deter other potential criminals. Otherwise, your statement appears to support the death penalty. After all, those who have been subjected to the death penalty have a 0% recividism rate . . .
Deterrance, as it pertains to deterring other people by making an example of one person, is something I find hard to swallow, especially in the case of the death penalty, where offenders are often psychotic and not particularly likely to be impacted by the execution of other, remote criminals.
Which is one of the things I find most disturbing about death penalty jurisprudence. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on this point, but I don't think we execute the mentally ill. In other words, the only ones we're allowed to execute are the sane offenders and, consequently, those whose shot at rehabilitation would seem to be the highest . . .
The following statement is what is most commonly heard, in one manner or another, prior to lethal injection.
This execution was yesterday.
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas man convicted of strangling a schoolteacher during a sexual assault in 1993 was executed by lethal injection on Wednesday.
Charles Daniel Thacker, 37, was the 17th person put to death this year in Texas, which leads the nation in capital punishment.
Thacker was condemned for strangling Karen Crawford during an attempted rape in a restroom at her northwest Houston apartment complex. She had been dragged into the restroom from the complex's mailboxes.
Thacker had protested his innocence in the murder, although several women testified at his trial he had raped them. On Wednesday, Thacker's attorneys attempted to have his execution delayed so evidence could be tested for his DNA.
In his final statement while strapped to a gurney in the Texas death chamber, Thacker said, "Tell my family I love them.
"I am sorry for the things I have done. I know God will forgive me. I will miss you guys. I love you. I guess that's all," he said.
For his last meal, Thacker requested two double cheeseburgers, French fries with ketchup, onion rings, fajitas, two Mountain Dews, two Coca-Colas, two Dr. Peppers, guacamole dip with tortilla chips, four slices of pepperoni pizza, one chocolate chip, two slices of double chocolate cake and two pints of ice cream.
He was the 353rd person put to death in Texas since the state resumed executions in 1982.
Three more executions are scheduled this year in Texas.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
I read recently that Virginia actually leads the nation in total executions. Mind you, that's counting back to 1607 or some such. I can't verify this information in any way, but I thought it interesting.
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Here in Dallas, a woman got what may be the shock of her life, when she was cited for running a toll booth 1500 times. Poor deterrance.
Let's see . . . . that's, ummmm, assuming she passes the toll booth twice per day . . . once going to work, once coming back, . . . . working 250 days per year . . . THREE YEARS of running the toll booth!!!
Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't see how this can be used to make argument.
In fact, I don't the relevance of deterrance at all.
I wanted to understand this, but there's no verb here
As for deterrance - I agree, it doesn't work on that scale. The only scale I see deterrance working on is at the individual level. That's what prisons are for - you serve X years in part to deter you from doing the crime again, because you know what will happen next time. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way - prisons are not always an effective deterrant.
I don't think running tollbooths is a sufficient analogy to multiple homicides.
As I said about the trial, the defense calls the shots.
A death penalty is immediately up for appeal, and in fact may be appealled many times.
We give murderers these rights.
The victim's only right is that the defendant is put on trial.
Murderers should also be afforded the right to their life - only their freedom needs to be forfeited to render them no longer a threat to society.
The rights of the victim should only be those of restitution - there is no way to recompensate someone for rape or assault. Vengeance is also not a right of the victim (now, I'm not saying that you said that, mind you).
And, if the victim is dead, they no longer have rights. They are dead.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
If criticising my sentence structure, which I could argue the point with you, is your best shot, that's pathetic.
You don't find it peculiar that they don't want dna testing until the day of execution, and then only as a means to delay?
As far as the toll booth, who said it was twice a day and what does that matter if it was or wasn't?
She got a fine of something like $72,000 dollars.
For toll booth running, I'd say that's the equivalent of a death penalty.
The sign posted stating the penalty went unheeded.
The sign is the attempt at deterrance.
The fine is the penalty.
And, if the victim is dead, they no longer have rights. They are dead.
Your last statement is simply disgusting, and needs no further comment.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Originally posted by SlowwHand
If criticising my sentence structure, which I could argue the point with you, is your best shot, that's pathetic.
No, I wasn't making fun of you, honestly. I wanted to know what you meant.
You don't find it peculiar that they don't want dna testing until the day of execution, and then only as a means to delay?
I'm not sure where this fits into the argument. Help me out?
As far as the toll booth, who said it was twice a day and what does that matter if it was or wasn't?
She got a fine of something like $72,000 dollars.
For toll booth running, I'd say that's the equivalent of a death penalty.
The sign posted stating the penalty went unheeded.
The sign is the attempt at deterrance.
The fine is the penalty.
I think the fine is deterrance as well - it seems unlikely that, after a 72 thousand dollar fine, she would run the sign again, yes?
Your last statement is simply disgusting, and needs no further comment.
I'm not aware of any dead person rights. What exactly are they?
Last edited by Cyclotron; November 10, 2005, 14:53.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't see how this can be used to make argument.
In fact, I don't the relevance of deterrance at all.
I wanted to understand this, but there's no verb here
Forgive me. I left out "understand"
quote:
You don't find it peculiar that they don't want dna testing until the day of execution, and then only as a means to delay?
I'm not sure where this fits into the argument. Help me out?
The crime was committed in 1993. Twelve years have passed. They didn't want, nor think of having DNA tests done until the very day of execution?
Why? They knew what the DNA would show. Guilt.
They asked for it merely as a delaying tactic, thus costing even more taxpayer money.
The exact reason I've said all along that IF executions do indeed cost more than life in prison, this is the reason.
quote:
As far as the toll booth, who said it was twice a day and what does that matter if it was or wasn't?
She got a fine of something like $72,000 dollars.
For toll booth running, I'd say that's the equivalent of a death penalty.
The sign posted stating the penalty went unheeded.
The sign is the attempt at deterrance.
The fine is the penalty.
I think the fine is deterrance as well - it seems unlikely that, after a 72 thousand dollar fine, she would run the sign again, yes?
No. Just as the executed murderer will not murder again.
The fine is the penalty.
The execution is the penalty.
Laws are the deterrant attempt. They define the crime and the penalty.
quote:
Your last statement is simply disgusting, and needs no further comment.
I'm not aware of any dead person rights. What exactly are they?
Exactly what I said. The right to have their murderer put on trial.
If they have no rights, why the arrest? Why a trial?
Laws are meant to deter by defining the crime and the penalty.
The penalty is the price paid for not being deterred.
If there is no penalty, what is the point of a law?
None.
Last edited by SlowwHand; November 10, 2005, 14:59.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Forgive me. I left out "understand"
No problem
The crime was committed in 1993. Twelve years have passed. They didn't want, nor think of having DNA tests done until the very day of execution?
Why? They knew what the DNA would show. Guilt.
They asked for it merely as a delaying tactic, thus costing even more taxpayer money.
The exact reason I've said all along that IF executions do indeed cost more than life in prison, this is the reason.
First of all, I agree with your point, and have said so in previous posts - the cost of appeals should not be considered to mean that the death penalty costs more in itself.
Secondly, and this is what I don't understand, why would they wait until the end to see the DNA? If they knew it would prove guilt, why would it matter when they reviewed the evidence?
No. Just as the executed murderer will not murder again.
The fine is the penalty.
The execution is the penalty.
Laws are the derrerant attempt. They define the crime and the penalty.
But a murderer with life in prison will also not murder again, correct?
I think on the idea of what penalties are for we must just agree to disagree. My understanding is that they are to deter, and they certainly work - I was fined 62 euro once for not having my train ticket on the U-Bahn in Austria. You can bet that I never left home without it again.
If they have no rights, why the arrest? Why a trial?
To establish who committed the crime and deal with that person in such a way that they will not reasonably be allowed to do so again.
Laws are meant to deter by defining the crime and the penalty.
The penalty is the price paid for not being deterred.
If there is no penalty, what is the point of a law?
None.
Like I said previously, I simply disagree. I belive laws and punishments are part and parcel of the same package of deterrance we use to stop people from committing crimes again.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Originally posted by Japher
who taught Sloww how to quote?!
Sava did it!
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Tweet
Comment