Left wing pinkoes control america

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just meaningless rambling.

I wasn't talking about your posts, Sloww

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




I have a bit more faith in legal minds. Though, of course, as Nietzsche says, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

I think it ultimately ends up in whose hands you want to entrust things to. Some want to go to the theologians, some want the lawyers, some want the mob.

And, of course, it is not all that silly to claim that in American legal tradition the Constitution is our Bible (as silly as that may sound to foreigners).

Why entrust it to legal minds? What insight do they have that others don't. For example, periodically, people say that a particular law sucks. What should be our guide for reform, if there is no precedent?

That is very true, but it is difficult to adequately measure the other consequences of punishment. In the end, arbitrariness has to come into play.

There will always be some imprecision, but that doesn't mean we should put up with more when we should put up with less.

[Lancer]

It's going to cost $40,000 (a wild guess) of our tax money to keep a child rapist alive in prison per year, or 50 cents to shoot him up with goodbye juice.

Tell you what, at that rate I'll pay for the first 1000 child rapists we off, personally, and shoot them up myself as well just for yucks. That will save the tax payers $4,000,000 per year that those sick perverts would otherwise have lived, and no chance of their getting early outed and raping more kids.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why entrust it to legal minds? What insight do they have that others don't. For example, periodically, people say that a particular law sucks. What should be our guide for reform, if there is no precedent?

Well, they are the ones that study the law and thus are better versed in knowing what the legal concepts mean as opposed to your local Congressman (which is why we entrust them with interpreting the law). Now, if the people (through their representatives... or pitchforks) say a particular law sucks, they are free to attempt to change it through the proper ways. The legal profession is a check on the mob.

Unless, of course, the common law system is scrapped, all laws do conform to a certain precedence (it is the very rare laws that is completely and totally new, legally speaking). The Constitution was an overarching law, above the common law, but everything else follows in the common law tradition. No one studies the common law or Constitutional law more than legal minds.

After all, I didn't say I was trusting them with making the laws (though I would do that as well if they were elected), but merely interpreting them.

There will always be some imprecision, but that doesn't mean we should put up with more when we should put up with less.

How is the least imprecise system of punishment determined? Remember we have to consider the social effects of punishment (hence no barbaric punishments that may be very effective in deterring). I think there will be vastly different ways of determine preciseness when you come with vague notions of the consequences of punishment further than crime.

Of course it also goes back to the purpose of punishment.

[Winston]

The Associated press reports that presumptive populist Barack Obama has declared that he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I believe the problem is deciding what punishment fits the crime. Sometimes it does seem that legislatures do seem not to care about punishments fitting the crime (seriously, do people really think that the death penalty for rape [forget of a child for the moment] fits the crime?)

You can't forget the 'of a child'.

The 'of a child' is part of a greater crime.

Sex is not illegal with most people, but it is with a child.

[Aeson]

Raping a child likely inflicts more harm on them than killing them would. On one hand you have a child dead, but at least their suffering is over. On the other you have a child who will live a life almost surely rife with severe emotional problems... and a significant chance they'll (at least attempt to) end their own life from the pain anyways.

But no DP. Not for anyone. Voluntary euthanasia is ok, even for criminals. (Even if you want to be cruel though, life in prison is crueler.)

[Winston]

Originally posted by Aeson
Raping a child likely inflicts more harm on them than killing them would. On one hand you have a child dead, but at least their suffering is over. On the other you have a child who will live a life almost surely rife with severe emotional problems... and a significant chance they'll (at least attempt to) end their own life from the pain anyways.

Pardon me, but what a load of BS.

It sounds more like your personal opinion than anything you could ever hope to back up with actual facts.

[MikeH]

Yeah, how dare you have an opinion and not quote facts.

Someone must get some kids and experiment to prove who's right!

[Winston]

Opinions are fine, when they're presented as opinions. That's usually done without the involvement of such words as "likely", "almost surely" and "a significant chance".

But any substantial debate on the topic of sex with minors is doomed to derail in very short order anyway, so I'm not sure there's much harm done.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You can't forget the 'of a child'.

The 'of a child' is part of a greater crime.

Sex is not illegal with most people, but it is with a child.

Thanks Captain Obvious. I was trying to search for some common ground here first.

And I'll have to agree with Winston on the what a load of BS stuff about raping a child is worse than murdering one.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't the point of having a constitution that freely elected state governments can't legislate things like torture, the rack or burning?

Correct. Torture is exclusively an executive power. I think to balance things out, only the legislative branch can have sex with interns and secretaries. That's why Bill Clinton got in such big trouble.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Winston
It sounds more like your personal opinion than anything you could ever hope to back up with actual facts.

I suppose the above is factual?

Of course what I posted is my opinion. That was obvious, even to you initially. On one hand you say it "sounds like your personal opinion", which btw it was meant to... and on the other hand you go off and make an idiot of yourself arguing against yourself by saying it's not an opinion.

A person can have an opinion about what they think is "likely", or even "surely", or even "than anything you could ever hope to back up".

Thanks for the laughs, idiot.

--------------

As for my opinion, it is derived from knowing a few kids who had been sexually abused. Of the 20 or so I've known in my life, strangely enough I met all of them in psychiatric hospitals, and most of them had attempted suicide at some point in their life. Not conclusive evidence of course, but certainly something that leaves an impression as to the emotional damage which sexual molestation can cause a child.

Now if you want to argue that sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche, have at it Winston. I'd love to hear your "facts", *****.

[Kidlicious]

People can recover from abuse, but not from death.