Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Jury's rule.Follow

#102 Apr 30 2007 at 8:48 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
But would you give pause about doing something heinous to others if you were assured that, if caught, the same thing would happen to you?


I imagine the reason many of them are there in the first place is that they didn't stop to think about it, which is the reason it doesn't work in the first place, not because they think thought wouldn't be caught.
#103 Apr 30 2007 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Despite the amount of attention wrong convictions get, you'd be hard pressed to name another social/legal system in use in our nation that is more accurate then our legal system.


Wait. You're saying our legal system is the best legal system in our country? Sweet! We're number 1!!

Seriously, though, private arbitration has been more effective and useful for resolving almost anything for about a century now.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#104 Apr 30 2007 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Seriously, though, private arbitration has been more effective and useful for resolving almost anything for about a century now.
Private arbitration will not be effective for anything serious, such as handling crimes against your person, until dueling is legalized.
#105 Apr 30 2007 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Gbaji, you're retarded. I can now see why most people don't even dignify your arguments with a legitimate response ~_~


I'm retarded because I disagree with you.

Hmmm...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Apr 30 2007 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Gbaji, you're retarded. I can now see why most people don't even dignify your arguments with a legitimate response ~_~


I'm retarded because I disagree with you.

Hmmm...
I think I've seen this episode before.
#107 Apr 30 2007 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
***
3,339 posts
Archfiend MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Gbaji, you're retarded. I can now see why most people don't even dignify your arguments with a legitimate response ~_~


I'm retarded because I disagree with you.

Hmmm...
I think I've seen this episode before.


Can we change Gbaji's custom title to Rerun?

#108 Apr 30 2007 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ad-hominums are ok in your mind then? Let's ignore what the guy said, let's just call him a ****** cause, well... I don't agree with him. Cant say way. Don't want to think that hard. But I know I dont agree with him, so he must be wrong, so he must be retarded.

Katchi, for the record, the reason most people don't dignify my arguments with a reasonable response is because in many cases, they *can't*. It's hard to actually respond to a set of logical premises and step by step reasonsing. You have to actually *think* about the issue before you. It's much easier to simply repeat what you've heard or read somewhere and hope the other guy goes away.

And when he doesn't, then you start calling him names and hope that makes him go away. The pattern is pretty obvious really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Apr 30 2007 at 5:20 PM Rating: Default
gbaji wrote:
Ad-hominums are ok in your mind then? Let's ignore what the guy said, let's just call him a ****** cause, well... I don't agree with him. Cant say way. Don't want to think that hard. But I know I dont agree with him, so he must be wrong, so he must be retarded.

Katchi, for the record, the reason most people don't dignify my arguments with a reasonable response is because in many cases, they *can't*. It's hard to actually respond to a set of logical premises and step by step reasonsing. You have to actually *think* about the issue before you. It's much easier to simply repeat what you've heard or read somewhere and hope the other guy goes away.

And when he doesn't, then you start calling him names and hope that makes him go away. The pattern is pretty obvious really.
Actually, I'd noticed the pattern.

That is why I said I thought I'd seen this episode before.

Person A disagrees with gbaji and can't come up with a good reason why.
Person A refers to gbaji as retarded.
gbaji responds with righteous indignation.
Persons B, C, D, and E show up to watch with lawn chairs and popcorn.
Person F notes that this event has happened several times before, and really wasn't that interesting the last few times.
Persons A, B, C, D, E, and gbaji throw popcorn (and lawn chairs) at Person F.
#110 Apr 30 2007 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm retarded because I disagree with you.
Werd Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Apr 30 2007 at 9:38 PM Rating: Decent
*
75 posts
Quote:
All 14 of them?

There are over 3500 people on death row *today*. 14 is less then .4% of that number. However, that's not 14 out of those there today, that's 14 out of every death row inmate that's been sentenced for the last ~30 years.

Does DNA allow us to more accurately determine if someone committed (or didn't commit) a crime? Absolutely.

Was our accuracy rate horrible prior to DNA? Not really. Or, more importantly, DNA evidence when applied to past death row cases only changed the outcome of the trials by an incredibly tiny percentage. Important to those 14? Absolutely. Sufficient to say we should chuck out the penalty for the other 99.6%? That's a whole different argument...

What you're missing is that the innocence project has a limited budget. There are only so many exonorees because thats all they had a budget for.

What would be more telling is the accuracy ratio of the innocence project itself. What percentage of the applicants claiming innocence that they take on is proven untrue?

Edited, May 1st 2007 1:57am by KANDIMANN
#112 May 01 2007 at 2:24 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to actually respond to a set of logical premises and step by step reasonsing. You have to actually *think* about the issue before you. It's much easier to simply repeat what you've heard or read somewhere and hope the other guy goes away.


Well at least you realise the problem.

Next step is putting it into practice.

Though, considering you've got 13k posts of practice and still can't do it, I'm not holding my breath.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#113 May 01 2007 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Ad-hominums are ok in your mind then? Let's ignore what the guy said, let's just call him a ****** cause, well... I don't agree with him. Cant say way. Don't want to think that hard. But I know I dont agree with him, so he must be wrong, so he must be retarded.

Katchi, for the record, the reason most people don't dignify my arguments with a reasonable response is because in many cases, they *can't*. It's hard to actually respond to a set of logical premises and step by step reasonsing. You have to actually *think* about the issue before you. It's much easier to simply repeat what you've heard or read somewhere and hope the other guy goes away.


Because it never ends with you. Assuming that you were someone who could set aside your own beliefs for one minute to objectively consider the issue and still form a legitimate argument from your stance... assuming all that, congratulations, you've filibustered me. I'm drowning in erroneous arguments. You'll forgive me for not wanting to waste my precious lifespan arguing with the one person who would actually be the devil's advocate.

If I were a teacher grading a paper, normally I would be the kind to respond to each mistake, but if a student turns in 5 pages of gibberish, I'm just going to put a fat red F on it and say "Do over."

So take your line of reasoning, and "do over," please.
#114 May 01 2007 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
gbaji wrote:
Katchi, for the record, the reason most people don't dignify my arguments with a reasonable response is because in many cases, they *can't*.
It is, arguably, very difficult to transmit reason when your target is seven kinds of an unreasonable buffoon.
#115 May 02 2007 at 3:35 AM Rating: Decent
I would rather have 100 guilty guys go free than one innocent guy die by my hand. Seems like an easy choice if I'm the innocent guy facing death for a crime I didn't commit.

Numbers are cool:

Africa
Executions in 2004: Egypt (6),Somalia (4), Sudan (2)

Asia
Afghanistan (1), Bangladesh (7), People's Republic of China (3,400), Republic of China on Taiwan (3), India (1), Indonesia (3), Iran (≈159), Japan (2), Jordan (1]), North Korea (probably 40+), Kuwait (9), Lebanon (3), Pakistan (15), Saudi Arabia (33), Singapore (6), Syria (2), Tajikistan (4), Uzbekistan (62), Vietnam (64), Yemen (6)

Europe
Belarus (5)

North America
Executions in 2006: United States (52)

South America
none

references
www.omct.org/pdf/procedures/2004/joint/s_violence_benin_sum_recom_10_2004.pdf (PDF)
www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/86fccf0fb9823123c1256b13005aadb5?Opendocument
www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41588.htm
www.ditshwanelo.org.bw/index/Current_Issues/Death_Penalty.htm
www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_04_8_2302.html

America rocks!!! Pretty soon we're gonna catch China.
#116 May 02 2007 at 5:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CatfishSlim wrote:
I would rather have 100 guilty guys go free than one innocent guy die by my hand.
I'm not sure I would. Luckily, it's easy enough to stick them in jail rather than being forced to make the choice between killing them or releasing them back into the wild.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 May 02 2007 at 9:56 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
CatfishSlim wrote:
I would rather have 100 guilty guys go free than one innocent guy die by my hand.
I'm not sure I would. Luckily, it's easy enough to stick them in jail rather than being forced to make the choice between killing them or releasing them back into the wild.


What if we tag them? Wouldn't that help keep track of their migration patterns?
#118 May 02 2007 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CatfishSlim wrote:
I would rather have 100 guilty guys go free than one innocent guy die by my hand. Seems like an easy choice if I'm the innocent guy facing death for a crime I didn't commit.


I'm going to reiterate my "the glass isn't full enough" analogy.

Instead of telling me how many guilty guys you'd rather go free then one innocent man be executed, why not tell me at what point the ratio would be too high for you to be ok with it?

Would a thousand guilty guys going free for every 1 innocent executed be ok? How about 10,000? A million? What's the number? If you can't name one, then your point is irrelevant. You could (and should) simply state "I will never under any conditions support capital punishment".


Yeah. Numbers are cool! ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 355 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (355)