Maximum Punishment: What's Wrong with Torture Penalty?

[lockecole]

What is wrong with torture penalty?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by lockecole
What is wrong with torture penalty?

The torture part.

 

[Pergatory]

What purpose does torture serve?

 

[MacTech]

Originally posted by lockecole
What is wrong with torture penalty?

mental mindset change.

Originally posted by Pergatory
What purpose does torture serve?

invokes fear of death actions.

 

[lockecole]

the purpose of torture

The purpose of torture is to make people afraid of committing crimes.

 

[nautica]

Yeah, I beat up a kid the other day for stealing a piece of bubble gum for the local quick pick. He will never steal another piece of bubble gum. Well, at least not from that quick pick.

Nautica

 

[olde drunk]

i thought this was the 21st century. have all the corporal punishments since time began eliminated crime?

lol, did being kicked out of heaven stop misbehaviour?

so, if those things don't work ain't it time to be intelligent about this subject. we have also learned that incarceration doesn't work. i would suggest that we stop worrying about how many toys can i acquire before i die and focus on education. this plus a realistic program for feeding and sheltering the masses will lead to a more peaceful society.

as long as we reward white collar crime and punish violence, the helpless, hopeless will be violent. it ain' t pennies per share earnings that are important, it is quality of performance.

all this will only change when we change our individual focus toward an enlightened way of helping those in need.

peace,

 

[mhernan]

Originally posted by lockecole
The purpose of torture is to make people afraid of committing crimes.

Torture is a crime. Torture is control of the weak by the brutally strong. Robbing banks is not activity deserving of torture.

 

[mhernan]

Originally posted by lockecole
The purpose of torture is to make people afraid of committing crimes.

Torture is a crime. Torture is control of the weak by the brutally strong. Robbing banks is not activity deserving of torture.

 

[Kerrie]

tickling is a form of torture

 

[olde drunk]

leadership

anyone or any regime that has tried to lead a country through fear has fallen after a brief period of success.

leadership that recognizes the need to inform and listen to feed back has had better success.

now, as intelligent, educated people you would think that we would expand on prior successes. unfortunately, today we see an erosion of that early confidence. we enact more and more laws out of fear, to instill fear. the patriot act is the best and latest example.

it is time, again, for the intelligentsia to lead the public forum toward less government and more education. torture of the hopeless, helpless only leads to more crime.

peace,

 

[mhernan]

An Olde Drunk was waxing poetic.

anyone or any regime that has tried to lead a country through fear has fallen after a brief period of success.
leadership that recognizes the need to inform and listen to feed back has had better success.

now, as intelligent, educated people you would think that we would expand on prior successes. unfortunately, today we see an erosion of that early confidence. we enact more and more laws out of fear, to instill fear. the patriot act is the best and latest example.

it is time, again, for the intelligentsia to lead the public forum toward less government and more education. torture of the hopeless, helpless only leads to more crime.

peace,


Kerrie tickling is a form of torture

I have no quarrel with your statement, though I intuitively mistrust "profound statements" and "profound poetry". In taking the slightest angle from the Olde drunk I suggest that the Homeland Security, War on Terror, War on Drugs and all the just plain junk yard dog rhetoruc coming from the "east" are not reactions based on fear. No more was the Reichstag Feuer shortly after Mr. Hitler was elected to office. Each of the wars mentioned above are conscious efforts that justify the ever accelerating growth of a police state. When we see that the prohibition on "arms" possession is another factor that offers momentum for the creation of a huge ersatz criminal society; manufacturing of the police state becomes more palatable as a planned social structure.

Where did all the Gestapo, {GeheimeStadtsPolezei - the Germans were masters at the use of the acronym weren't they>) agents go after April 1945? "Sie haben das Geschaft nach Alexandria , Va. verlecht, nicht war?"

On a personal note of no consequence, I admit to no grand status of "Old Drunk", nay, I am much too humble for such a claim. I simply stopped drinking and like the song says, "The whiskey ain't workin' anymore."

 

[Njorl]

Torture has two possible purposes. Gratification of perverse, sadistic desire and the breaking of a human's will. It isn't used for punishment. It isn't used to make someone do some specific thing. It is used to fundamentally change a persona, so that an individual will always be an appendage of another person's will. There is nothing more vile. It is like killing someone and leaving them alive enough to witness their own death.

Njorl

 

[olde drunk]

all our wars

has there been a war that was successful?? (rhetorical)

the war on drugs is a JOKE! it has a bureaucracy that gets paid almost as patronage. legalize drugs and our persrciption cost would go down also.

war on poverty was/is reparations and sits on the impoverished heads like a storm troopers boot. if you don't elect the person favorable to welfare, you will lose your allocation.

war on terroism is the biggest and most potentially dangerous aspect of our current situation. you can not prevent and/or hide from terrorism. anyone that can read this post knows that if they choose to blow up a building or a crowded venue, they could. it ain't rocket science. we must allow the patriot act expire.

i like the quote 'an eye for and eye; a tooth for a tooth; a limb for a limb; makes us all blind, toothless cripples'.

let's do something intelligent and not wage war.

yo hernan! i ain't being grandious; just glad to have lived this long after drinking soooo much! although, i did leave a few drops for my friends. here's to ya!

pax,

 

[mhernan]

Yo, Oldedrunk,

"Flap your Wings"?, go have sex with youself, run for congress.
mhernan

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by mhernan
Yo, Oldedrunk,

"Flap your Wings"?, go have sex with youself, run for congress.
mhernan

how does an honest man get elected??

welfare reform? election reform? legalize drugs? reduce government? preach peace?

hell, this platform would scare the **** out of the taliban as well!

peace,

 

[mhernan]

Originally posted by olde drunk
how does an honest man get elected??

welfare reform? election reform? legalize drugs? reduce government? preach peace?

hell, this platform would scare the **** out of the taliban as well!

peace,

mhernan responds

What's real?

Try this out for size: Read the Constitution for your understanding. Notice that Article V describes the amendment process, exclusively. It is truly boring reading, but once you read it a few dozen times the process takes on a new vibration.

Then read Marbury vs Madison - Read what Marshall has to say about congress enacting statutes contrary to the constitution. Here Marshall said that Marbury had an absoute legal right to that which he was acting, but Marshall couldn't do it for constitutionl rreasons.

Then, read the Decl. of Independence.

Three CS papers. You do read don't you?

Just these documents. preach these. remind everybody what it is all about. Never use the words: "legalize drugs." read the sections re "Bill of Attainder". Preach how intyrusive it is for the state to determine what a person puts in their own body. Read the Bill of Rights.

Don't study the papers for some test. Don't read volumes on what the historians have to say. Find Thom Jefferson's quotes regarding the right to bear arms. Think how phony crimes create a huge "criminal strata".

Hey, O.D. the delivery is not all that different than empassioned bar talk. Are you familiar with empassioned bar talk?

Finally, don't set a wall in front of yourself that spells doom. See yourself a winner and start talking, walking, and beating the drum. Keep obscenities to a minimum. Talk straight. Let opponents look up your past."So what", is always a good response to the irrelevant. Talk only the issues.

I saw two WWII p-51 fighter pilot aces discussing this and that. When asked what tactics he used in airial combat, an Ace said,"I found that sneaking up behind them and blowing them out of the sky worked for me."

Another offered that,"There is no such thing as a successful defensive move. No, no, you must keep focused on how to get the one you are engaged with."

What the hell, are you going to spend the rest of eternity preaching in threads?

See yourself the winner with headlines:"Olde Drunk Toasts Victory."

Certainly, by now, you already know how to lose, don't cha? Embarrassment isn't a factor, is it? Timidity? Too busy? Start drinking again?


Okay, Flap your Wings, just pick up the frequency a tad, like flap 'em like a hummingbird, or 'fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee'.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's funny that your list of founding documents includes Marbury vs. Madison, because that decision, and its acceptance, meant that no longer is the US constitution freely interpretable by all individuals, as you are doing here, but rather only by nine individuals, appointed for life, accountable to nobody, and subject to all the errors and prejudices that a handful of humans can have.

A judge is a lawyer who knows a politician. A supreme court justice is a lawyer who knows a president (or the president's political organization).

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by mhernan
mhernan responds

What's real?

OLDEDRUNK: this reality is real and valid, subject to my personal inturpretation.

Try this out for size: Read the Constitution for your understanding. Notice that Article V describes the amendment process, exclusively. It is truly boring reading, but once you read it a few dozen times the process takes on a new vibration.

Then read Marbury vs Madison - Read what Marshall has to say about congress enacting statutes contrary to the constitution. Here Marshall said that Marbury had an absoute legal right to that which he was acting, but Marshall couldn't do it for constitutionl rreasons.

Then, read the Decl. of Independence.

Three CS papers. You do read don't you?

OLDEDRUNK: must you lower yourself to insults?? i thot you had some class.

Just these documents. preach these. remind everybody what it is all about. Never use the words: "legalize drugs." read the sections re "Bill of Attainder". Preach how intyrusive it is for the state to determine what a person puts in their own body. Read the Bill of Rights.

Don't study the papers for some test. Don't read volumes on what the historians have to say. Find Thom Jefferson's quotes regarding the right to bear arms. Think how phony crimes create a huge "criminal strata".

Hey, O.D. the delivery is not all that different than empassioned bar talk. Are you familiar with empassioned bar talk?

OLDEDRUNK: i do what i can do, when i can do it. i share what i have learned after many years of mistakes.

Finally, don't set a wall in front of yourself that spells doom. See yourself a winner and start talking, walking, and beating the drum. Keep obscenities to a minimum. Talk straight. Let opponents look up your past."So what", is always a good response to the irrelevant. Talk only the issues.

OLDEDRUNK: how can you say such a thing? you have no idea of how or why i say what i do. incidentally, my office is next door to a small GP's office(3 MD's). During the day, i would say they average 1-2 drug company reps calling on them, each hour, with suitcases full of 'samples'. these are nice for patients with no insurance. BUT, it must cost $100,000+/yr to put 1 rep on the road. How much does that add to the cost of drugs, plus TV ads, etc, etc.

I saw two WWII p-51 fighter pilot aces discussing this and that. When asked what tactics he used in airial combat, an Ace said,"I found that sneaking up behind them and blowing them out of the sky worked for me."

Another offered that,"There is no such thing as a successful defensive move. No, no, you must keep focused on how to get the one you are engaged with."

What the hell, are you going to spend the rest of eternity preaching in threads?

See yourself the winner with headlines:"Olde Drunk Toasts Victory."

Certainly, by now, you already know how to lose, don't cha? Embarrassment isn't a factor, is it? Timidity? Too busy? Start drinking again?


Okay, Flap your Wings, just pick up the frequency a tad, like flap 'em like a hummingbird, or 'fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee'.

sorry, son, but i am too old and finished fighting windmills. an older, wiser drunk now realizes that education and information is the path of change. you fail to realize that most people have a goal that was unconsciously implanted by religious and political leaders. this needs to be undone.

i have taught my children that the only goal worth having is to be happy in whatever you do. if an act makes you uncomfortable, regardless of why, then don't do it.

incidentally, i gave up stinging like a bee. i do not want to harm my opponent or lose his attention. if he doesn't like what i say, so be it. BUT, at least the seed is planted for the next round of discussion of the subject, even if it is with another person.

i learned during looong marches in the army, it is 'just one foot in front of the other' (a disassociate mantra). before you know it, you're there.

why don't you list your ideas on how to legally argue for the freedom to ingest whatever we want. beware, this is not a legal issue. we need to expose the money invested by all levels of commerce to have all products controlled. hell, madison avenue would fall apart if we had free trade and we bought a 'dangerous' product cheaply, accepting the 'risk' that it wasn't up to 'code'.

peace,

 

[mhernan]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It's funny that your list of founding documents includes Marbury vs. Madison, because that decision, and its acceptance, meant that no longer is the US constitution freely interpretable by all individuals, as you are doing here, but rather only by nine individuals, appointed for life, accountable to nobody, and subject to all the errors and prejudices that a handful of humans can have.

A judge is a lawyer who knows a politician. A supreme court justice is a lawyer who knows a president (or the president's political organization).

Not so Adjoint, about interpretation I mean. You and I are still able to interpret the COnstitution to our hearts content. I menationed Marbury v. Madison as Marshall made a clear defintion, that you and I can live with, regarding interpeting the Constitution. We don't need Marshall, but he helps to keep the BS to a minimum.

The Constituion says what it says and means what it says. If the Constitution says the Supreme Court will have appellate jurisdiction in all matters except ambassadors etc. then if Congress passes a law saying the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction what are we to do?

Marshall said that if the Constitution can be altered by ordinary acts of COngress to the extent of overriding the Constitution, especially the limitations on governmental activity, then we have no Constitution. To say that "congress shall pass no law respecting an establisment of religion, . . ." means, "no law", and to avoid this prohibition such as enacting anti-polygamy statutes for some governmental reason, is specious. The constitution is suffering a terribly brutal raping as we speak. Search and seizure, probable cause. The 6th Amendment guarantees a person charged with a crime a trial by jury, the right to test the evidence against him, to bring witnesses etc. Over 90% of prison inmates had no trial. There is the process of defense attornies, prosecuting attornies and judges. The old joke that "1000 attornies at the bottom of the ocean would be a "good start" can be enhanced by attaching a judge to each of them.

The constitution giving appellate jursidiction to the Supreme Court cannot be negated by Congress's attempt to grant original jurisdiction which is why Marbury lost in the Supreme Court. He relied on the statute by Congress granting the Supreme Court original jurisiction. Marbury still gets what he is seeking, but he must first go to a lower court, lose, then file an appeal.

The constituion is simple enough to avoid interpretation problems. ALso, there is nothing in the law that sanctifies stare decisis as overriding the constitution. A typical Appellate process is to create "exceptions" to the meaqnings. Forinstance, where the constitution priohibits the states and congress from passing any bill of attainder, the arguments for, drug laws for instance,is in the "brioad police powers" theory. The "broad police powers" existed before the constitution and there being no specific prohibiton against their uses, the "the broad police powers" get grand-fathered into the constituion, not as real exceptions, but as the law as it were at the time the constitution s adopted.

You are correct about everybody knowing everybody. The modern club members are easily identifiable, but you and I aren't subject to Stare Decisis pronouncements. These "rules" are obeyed or disobeyed by the lower echelons in he legal [profession because that is what they were taught to do in law school.

When one swears to uphold and defend teh constitution are they referring to the document or to the concept of Stare Decisis?

 

[mhernan]

Originally posted by olde drunk


sorry, son, but i am too old and finished fighting windmills. an older, wiser drunk now realizes that education and information is the path of change. you fail to realize that most people have a goal that was unconsciously implanted by religious and political leaders. this needs to be undone.

i have taught my children that the only goal worth having is to be happy in whatever you do. if an act makes you uncomfortable, regardless of why, then don't do it.

incidentally, i gave up stinging like a bee. i do not want to harm my opponent or lose his attention. if he doesn't like what i say, so be it. BUT, at least the seed is planted for the next round of discussion of the subject, even if it is with another person.

i learned during looong marches in the army, it is 'just one foot in front of the other' (a disassociate mantra). before you know it, you're there.


why don't you list your ideas on how to legally argue for the freedom to ingest whatever we want. beware, this is not a legal issue. we need to expose the money invested by all levels of commerce to have all products controlled. hell, madison avenue would fall apart if we had free trade and we bought a 'dangerous' product cheaply, accepting the 'risk' that it wasn't up to 'code'.

peace,

YOu can't say I didn't try.

Just a question. When you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, just exactly what did you mean?
Pax.

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by mhernan
YOu can't say I didn't try.

Just a question. When you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, just exactly what did you mean?
Pax.

at 18, i had no idea. i was addressing my obligation since the draft existed way back then. i also got it over with before Nam exploded.

If we were attacked, i would fight. would i die as a martyr in the event of civil unrest? i dunno. it would depend solely on the particulars of a given situation. it would not be a deliberate act. rather, the consequence of demostration or other peaceful activity.

i see no value in dying for a cause. if i ain't here, i can't continue to work towards a change.

now my dear barrister, how do you suppose we/you can accomplish change?? please don't say the legal or court system. unfortunately they are controlled by the selfish elite. they only allow liberal causes to prevail that do not threaten their financial-power base. hell, the tobacco companies were made into scape goats because they don't want people looking at the real problem - being responsible for our actions. without lab results, i'd guess that 1 SUV being driven by a lone woman to the mall emits more damaging particulates into the air than a whole carton of cigarettes. but whoa, we can't cripple the auto, oil, advertising, finance, insurance and other allied industries by outlawing benzine emissions.

so, if we deal harshly with the criminal element, government is practicing the art of misdirection. see what we are doing! we should use maximum punishment on corporate leaders that mismanage their company. they get big payouts when the company thrives, why not level the playing field. they may actually care about the quality of the company's performance(product) and not earnings per share.

it is funny that poor Martha is going to jail while bankrupt company executives still have their freedom. talk about misdirection!

modern thought has got to be able to find a better solution to crime and criminals.

peace,

 

[mhernan]

Interpreting the Constitution

Originally posted by mhernan
You can't say I didn't try.

Just a question. When you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, just exactly what did you mean?


OldeDrunk replied to mhernan as

at 18, i had no idea. i was addressing my obligation since the draft existed way back then. i also got it over with before Nam exploded.

If we were attacked, i would fight. would i die as a martyr in the event of civil unrest? i dunno. it would depend solely on the particulars of a given situation. it would not be a deliberate act. rather, the consequence of demostration or other peaceful activity.

i see no value in dying for a cause. if i ain't here, i can't continue to work towards a change.

now my dear barrister, how do you suppose we/you can accomplish change?? please don't say the legal or court system. unfortunately they are controlled by the selfish elite. they only allow liberal causes to prevail that do not threaten their financial-power base. hell, the tobacco companies were made into scape goats because they don't want people looking at the real problem - being responsible for our actions. without lab results, i'd guess that 1 SUV being driven by a lone woman to the mall emits more damaging particulates into the air than a whole carton of cigarettes. but whoa, we can't cripple the auto, oil, advertising, finance, insurance and other allied industries by outlawing benzine emissions.

so, if we deal harshly with the criminal element, government is practicing the art of misdirection. see what we are doing! we should use maximum punishment on corporate leaders that mismanage their company. they get big payouts when the company thrives, why not level the playing field. they may actually care about the quality of the company's performance(product) and not earnings per share.

it is funny that poor Martha is going to jail while bankrupt company executives still have their freedom. talk about misdirection!

modern thought has got to be able to find a better solution to crime and criminals.

peace,

Did you say "poor" Martha?
Modern thought needs only a repairing. Commit a Crime do your time.

Controlled substance activitry is not a crime, any of it.

I see no value in dying for anything either, but sometimes one has to stand up and delive theorir soul, in a manner of speakingh, for the herd to accep, reject, digest or whatever.

I was 16 when I did it and knew not more or less than anyone else.

I ask the question rhetorically "What did you mean when you swore to uphold and Defend the Constituionj?". I ask it today with the added query, "Did you mean the US COnstitution, that is the written document, or some copncept of "Stare Decisis", which I call the "Stare of Death", sometimes referrd to as rule by Judicial Fiat OR: The constitution means only what the judges say.

All you say is right on. Penal sanctions for controlled substance activity isn't a legal issue, it is a basic constitutional issue: fairness, intelligence, basic understanding, my body, mind and sould are mine - do not touch without permission.

A fact: arguing the Cnstitution to someone that responds "Well the Court said . . ." tells me I have a Stare Decisis standing in front of me who has never read the constituion. Law students don't read the constitution they are taught how judges and attornies corrupt the constitution , hence they are taught to believe likewise, with "exceptions", "they [the autors of the constitution] didn't mean that ..." even tho that is what they [it] says.

Most people look at the courts and government to provide freedom to them, even to the basic definitions when the constituion gives that fundamental right expressly to the people: IX and X Amendment.

IX .The enumeration in the Con , of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage otghers retained by the people.
[Retained by the people]

X . The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ,nor prohibited by it to the states. are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why don't we just apply the law equally to all, like we all are programmed to believe? We don't a conghress picking ANY group out for selective prosecution, see Art. I Section 9 caluse 1, and Art. I, Section 10 Clause3 which prohibis any 'Bill of Attainder' being ebnacted by Congress or the States.
Bill of Attainder is a simle concept: A legislature declares "Those people doing X are felons.", where X is "controlled substance activity."
See a god reading , but imperfect.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/381/437.html"

You refer to me as a barrister again and I will sue, even tho I took the reference as a compliment intended.

You are referring to this and that to do this and that. It's you and me baby, just like always. You're too smart. You gotta, see the world with little meaningful words.

pax,
Mhernan