SC bans death penalty for juvenile offenders

bobb wrote:
"Kane" wrote in message
oups.com...

bobb wrote:
"Kane" wrote in message
oups.com...

bobb wrote:
I have to agree with Kane... but for much different reasons
except
to
say
the death penalty has never been a deterent... even for adults.

I do have to wonder if this isn't the begining of a trend.
Life
imprisonment might be reserved for the worse kinda killers
with
lesser
sentences for other killings.

bobb

When we finally are civilized enough we will recognize that some
youths, and children can be rehabilitated and some cannot. It's
the
compulsives that cannot.

I've met both kinds.

We kill both kinds, without sufficient discrimination.

We kill children that can be worked with, and we free those that
cannot.

This time you are right, bobber. It is wrong to have a
one-size-fits-all solution to the child who kills.


Kane


Those 'other killings' if you have been reading the newspapers,
etc.,
amount
to an accidental death or one caused by negligence as oppose to
the
intentional.

I would suppose the 'worse kind' are ones such as BTK, Gacy,
drive-by
thrill
seekers, and paid killers.

Let me see now. We were discussing the end to the death penalty for
juveniles in this country.

Then you wanted to discriminate between horrific and less horrific.

Frankly I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but then I don't
think
you are terribly clear yourself about what it is you are saying.

For you see, bobber the terribly swift sword, what you ask for is
what
we are getting and the point of the criminal justice system...has
been
for a very long time now, comin' up on 300 years in this country,
and I
lose track of the progress of law prior to that.

Read your own statement over and then think about the criminal
justice
system functions and intents and see if you can make a connection
0:-.

Bobber:
"
I do have to wonder if this isn't the begining of a trend. Life
imprisonment might be reserved for the worse kinda killers with
lesser
sentences for other killings.
"

Gee, bobber, check out the states where the death penalty was
banned
long ago and see if they are not in fact doing just that.

Of course that makes you absolutely brilliant spotting, and
advising
us, that this might become a "trend."

You asked the question...
So tell us, what is the difference between "the worse kinda
killers"
and the "other killings?"
...and I merely responded.

Yes, you did that, alrighty.

If anyone had solid answers to the
criminal mind we wouldn't be having this conversation... but in
recent times we have went a bit overboard with jail time... even
the most horrific.

There will always be that problem. It think that a number of horrific
crimes, and much of it by repeat offenders, and the media handling of
those, brought about the public reaction and the ensuing change in our
sentencing as well as prosecutorial increase in power and privilege.

That said, do you really think short sentences would actually work?

At least with murderers, our central point in the issues under
discussion, they cannot kill while locked up....though fellow prisoners
and guards might be at risk, they can't roam freely and pick from among
the general population for victims.

Murders, contrary to popular belief, are not
usually repeat offenders...

That's 'cause they get locked up for so long. Can't usually repeat
while in prison.

You leave someone that's murdered, especially if it met some need of
theirs, out in the general population, and you WILL see more serial
killers, bobber.

and those that are, such as the serial
killer, would deserve life in prision, perhaps.

"Perhaps?" A serial killer "perhaps" would deserve life in prison?

How about we just buy up the houses on your street, and let them out to
leave there?

There are some
pretty bad juvenile killers out there but does that mean they
are all unrepentant, or a danger to society?

Yes, and no, no and yes. You are simply babbling. Making no point.
Saying nothing. Just rattling your head and keyboarding in whatever
falls out.

The point of the court system is to sort out these very things, bobber,
and sentence accordingly.

If we follow the time line, or history, there has been a move
to exact life sentences, and execution for no other reason
than to exact retribution on behalf of the victim. We should,
instead, be focusing on the effect to society and not
individuals.

What a simpleton. Executions to "exact retribution" is most pointedly
to "effect," "society" and most certainly to take "individuals" out of
circulation that have murdered. That's a fairly strong "effect" I'd
have to admit.

This trend filtered down to juveniles. Life sentences followed
by execution. When one argues that it is ok to taser a 6 year old
child it's easy to follow the trend that is on-going.

The argument about the six year old was not about simply shooting a six
year old with a taser. He had cut himself twice, seariously already, on
face and arm, and had been holding the adults at bay with a piece of
broken glass. He ws not tasered until he began to saw on his own
leg...wherein lies the largest artery in the body. Cut it and and a
person can bleed out in seconds...and die.

The officers, nor the school staff, are required to risk their
life...and possibly fail to stop the boy from injuring himself, so they
used the taser, what I think, as others have agreed, was a very good
move on their part. No one came to any further harm.

What's next,
life imprisonment for 7 year olds? Already we have 10 year
old sex offenders in jail for life.

We do? Citation please.

We see these same events in civil courts. Individuals are
going after the huge money awards... not fail play or justice.

Ask greegor about it. He's the resident expert in these ngs about going
after "huge money awards" and ignoring fair play or justice for the
child and the family he disrupted. I think the little girl should be
able to sue HIM, for fair play and just.

This, too, has been a trend of recent times and needs to
be reversed. Many experts have warned that the civil
courts are being used instead of the criminal courts, or
in combination, which ultimately leads to injustice.

babble babble babble.

Everyone is victim. Everyone needs 'closure'. That's malarky.

Sure it is, except where someone is a victim.

So tell us, bobber the swift, do you think that greegor the grand was a
victim of CPS? And if so, help us understand that unfairness by
elaborating. Much thanks if you can clear this up for me.

bobb

0:-

Kane

PS, I notice you didn't answer the question about the use of lethal
force and greegor's old post to an ex cop on the subject of it's use by
a parent. Tsk. K




Yet another day started with a grin. Can I hope that greegor
hurries
home from his obviously exhausting labors and helps entertain me
later
in the day?

What would happen if he answered my question?

Gosh, bobber, what would happen if YOU answered my question
regarding
your opinion of his old ex-cop reply post and his reluctance to
clarify
now?

You got an opinion....or you just kinda holdin' back there in hope
of
Doug coming to the rescue, again? We're gonna have to get that guy
a
white horse and a big white Stetson if this keeps up....RRR R R R
RRRR
R R

bobb

Kane

Yes, the tv pundits reported a snowboarding 16 year old boy ran into a
woman who subsequently died from injury. Yeh, you guessed it... they want
to charge the 16 year old with murder. Negligent homicide.

There was but one District Attorney with a cooler head... but even he said
if the boy was snowboarding in a 'reckless' manner without due regard to
others the boy could be charged. He went so far as to suggest that perhaps,
in this instance, maybe it was just an accident. An accident? We've almost
come to beleive there is no such thing as an accident these days. Every is
at fault. Prosecute, jail, sue, get even. Even taser six you old boys!

bobb

bobb wrote:
Yes, the tv pundits reported a snowboarding 16 year old boy ran into
a
woman who subsequently died from injury. Yeh, you guessed it... they
want
to charge the 16 year old with murder. Negligent homicide.

I wonder if "murder" and "negligent homicide" are the mutually
inclusive in that state? Most places have different designations, and
different sentencing upon conviction for the two. And there are degrees
of culpability in charging protocol as well.

Something about how the judicial system works, I've heard, where one
size does not fit all. 0:-

There was but one District Attorney with a cooler head... but even he
said
if the boy was snowboarding in a 'reckless' manner without due regard
to
others the boy could be charged.

Yes, I presume one could, do that in a "'reckless manner'" just as one
could operate any conveyance, even running on one's own two feet. You
can do many things in a reckless manner without proper regard of life
and safety. That's one of those things we learned about in
kindergarten.

They are called "rules" and we have them for a reason. One, at the
extreme end, is to stay alive and not kill others.


He went so far as to suggest that perhaps,
in this instance, maybe it was just an accident.

That is what a trial is for, if it's deemed warranted.

Witnesses can be called. They might even say things like "conditions
were perfect for easy control of ski and board that day, with 8 inches
of fresh powder groomed in the area of the accident," or "we had a
light mist that refroze the upper half inch of snow into pelletted
form, forming 'corn snow' known to be like skiing on ball bearings and
dangerous. Both the snowboarder and the person he hit went on to the
area unaware of the conditions."

Do you get my drift here, swifty?

An accident?

Well, the first scenario I offered, highly plausible, would be hard to
call and "accident," while the second is obviously, because of
uncontrollable conditions, just that; an accident.

We've almost
come to beleive there is no such thing as an accident these days.

"We?" Who you referring to white man?

I know very few people as stupid and ignorant as you. That "we" would
qualify, of course. But the "we" I hangout with, read about, listen to,
do not pretend there is no such thing as an 'accident."

Every is
at fault. Prosecute, jail, sue, get even.

Weird, I know of so few of people that have done that...in fact, given
the population of this country I'd be embolded to say that something on
the order of fraction of a percent might be involved in civil suit or
criminal charges for "accidents."

Even taser six you old boys!

You seem to be having a lot of fun with this one, and ignoring, or
hysterically blind to the facts.

Let's see if this is the one you refer to, posted about many times in
these ngs:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D
| My Groups | Help | Sign out
Go to Google Groups Home
Web Images Groups News Froogle LocalNew! more =BB

Advanced Groups Search
Preferences
alt.parenting.spanking FL police taser 6yo principal's office in
Miami

Fixed font - Proportional font
Fern5827 Nov 12 2004, 5:35 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: (Fern5827) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Nov 2004 13:35:33 GMT
Local: Fri, Nov 12 2004 5:35 am
Subject: FL police taser 6yo principal's office in Miami
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Subject: Cops taser 6 y.o. boy armed with piece of glass
From: (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend)
Date: 11/12/2004 12:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2896941

Nov. 11, 2004, 8:29PM

MIAMI -- Police used a stun gun on a 6-year-old boy in his principal's
office because he was wielding a piece of glass and threatening to
hurt himself, officials said today.

The boy, who was not identified, was shocked with 50,000 volts on Oct.
20 at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School.

Principal Maria Mason called 911 after the child broke a picture frame
in her office and waved a piece of glass, holding a security guard
back.

When two Miami-Dade County police officers and a school officer
arrived, the boy had already cut himself under his eye and on his
hand.

The officers talked to the boy without success. When the boy cut his
own leg, one officer shocked him with a Taser and another grabbed him
to prevent him from falling, police said.

He was treated and taken to a hospital, where he was committed for
psychiatric evaluation.

"By using the Taser, we were able to stop the situation, stop him from
hurting himself," police spokesman Juan DelCastillo told The Miami
Herald.

The case was under review.

DESCRIPTORS; DCF, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, ATTENTION SEEKING BEHAVIOR, CPS,
CHILD
PROTECTIVE
Google Home - Google Labs - Services & Tools - Terms of Service -
Privacy Policy - Jobs, Press, & Help

=A92005 Google
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

If this wasn't the six year old you were referring to, update us, won't
you?

This case, if you actually read the story, despite your comments at the
time that YOU would have heroically grabbed the boy and taken the glass
away from him, shows plainly that this was a life saving action by the
police.

So was the one where a teen was involved who fought the v.principal and
a security guard when the guard tried a Terri Pat (a life saving
technique). That boy had been given every chance to cooperate. He chose
to fight.

And yet another life saver use of taser was the one involving the
drunken 12 year old girl running into traffic.

If you don't think so, provide arguments of how these could have been
more safely handled, in each case, or pick one, if you like.

Notice not one of the three died, or were injured in any way?

Notice that YOU are going PC on this issue, just like the media and the
public?

A police used technique with a huge lead on any other for rate of safe,
non-lethal outcomes, and YOU and the public, you little PC twit, think
there's something wrong with it.

It's a pleasure watching you make a fool of yourself, again.

And what, by the way, has the use of taser to do with banning of the
death penalty for juveniles? In fact what has anything you offered to
do with the banning of the death penalty for minors?

Would you care to discuss the banning, pro or con? I'd be interested in
continuing this enlightening exchange.=20
=20
bobb

Kane

Hmm! The eighth admendment.....whats cruel and unusual about using
lethal injection.....the subject simply goes to sleep.....even the
removal of the head is
humane, just messy......if you punish youthful offenders, and don't use
the extreme pushiment, society simply goes soft....and there is a rise
in major crimes.

Chuck from a capital punishment state



htmlbody bgcolor="black"


text="white"/html

Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Where is THAT in our US Constitution?

Such acknowledged influence on our policy
seems a bit Traitorial, contrary to our system
of government, unless it goes THROUGH the
people and their VOTE!

Kane actually JUSTIFIED such FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

Actually, trials for murdering gang bangers as
adults did have a rather large impact. If statistics
say otherwise, then the stats LIE.

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Aren't you aware, Greg, that the US invaded Iraq to change the type of
government they have?

Talk about foreign pressure.

Where is THAT in our US Constitution?

I don't believe it is.

Such acknowledged influence on our policy
seems a bit Traitorial, contrary to our system
of government, unless it goes THROUGH the
people and their VOTE!

Kane actually JUSTIFIED such FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

Actually, trials for murdering gang bangers as
adults did have a rather large impact. If statistics
say otherwise, then the stats LIE.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Dan Sullivan wrote:


"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Aren't you aware, Greg, that the US invaded Iraq to change the type of
government they have?

And are you aware that much of the world, including the UN, were very much
against it?

Talk about foreign pressure.

Exactly!

Doan

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Where is THAT in our US Constitution?

Such acknowledged influence on our policy
seems a bit Traitorial, contrary to our system
of government, unless it goes THROUGH the
people and their VOTE!

Kane actually JUSTIFIED such FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

Actually, trials for murdering gang bangers as
adults did have a rather large impact. If statistics
say otherwise, then the stats LIE.

We have strayed far from constitutional provisions regardless of outside
influences.

Although age is not mentioned we deny kids many of the constitution
provisions that USED to be recognized.

As a distinct group, parents are no longer constitutionally protected...
and the traditional family is an endangered species.

Although I agree the death penality should not apply to young children I
beleive the Supreme County is on a slippery slope when they determined a
child's brain is not fully developed as a reason for not executing children.

The supreme court has toyed with the death penality in many various ways and
I doubt they will ever get it right.

"Cruel and unusual" are subjective terms yet they continue to define with
some degree of specificity was it, and what is not.

I think it's cruel to send someone to prison for life, or even 20 years,
because he/she comitted a non-violent crime but it is no longer unusual.

The constitution is suppposed to protect us from government but more and
more we are seeing legislators designing government as a protection
agency.

If we look to foreign government their people have enjoyed the most
freedoms. In the last 30 years or so, it is the U.S. government that has
influenced and extended the reach of even foreign government.

It's interesting to note which foreign governments are influencing ours. In
the African countries property is valued far beyond life.. and vigilante
justice is common-place. Steal a man's property it's instant death. Kill a
another person 'unlawfully' and the jail sentence is measured in weeks.

In the middle-east reputation, honor, or sense of family is all
important. Screw with an unmarried daughter or sister regarless of age and
death is instant.

In both these instances.. it is not the government that imposes the death
penality.. it is the people. Governments rarely execute except for crimes
against the state and even those are rare.

At another level, sometimes contradictory, we attempt to impose our 'moral'
values on European countries through bribes and threats forgetting, once
again, the people should be protected from government and not subject to
additional sanctions.

bobb

bobb wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Do you want to pretend that we don't influence the domestic policies of
other nations?

It's supposed to be a two way street, greegor. "Reciprocity."

Where is THAT in our US Constitution?

Well, there IS a little section about the conduct of foreign relations,
greegor. Honest.

I love that you twits are constantly citing the constitution, but have
little knowledge of it.

Are you aware that ONE of the diplomatic tools open to us as a country,
WAR, is controlled by constitutional sanction?

Do you know that others are, such as tariffs, which can and have been
punitively against other nations?

Such acknowledged influence on our policy
seems a bit Traitorial, contrary to our system
of government, unless it goes THROUGH the
people and their VOTE!

Oh dear. You still haven't figure out what a constitutionally mandated
republic is, have you?

We vote for our representatives. They, under pressures of various
kinds, create laws. And, greegor, bobber, THEY decide if and how we
respond to foreign pressures. And if you don't like how they do that,
you do what's built into a representative democracy.....rather a lot of
thing actually.

You call, write letters, complain publically in the media with letters
to the editor, you picket the state houses, local to federal. You
buttonhole your representative critters at their offices in your home
area, and their staff.

And in the end, if you don't like how they do things, you campaign for
and vote for someone else.

It's a lawful, successful (unless you think we are a not the most
successful country on this planet) method that seems to be working for
those of us that use it. YOU, for instance, don't have that little girl
to torture and frighten, precisely because we citizens voted for a
serious of representatives that made law to carry out our wishes to
protect children from such as you.

Kane actually JUSTIFIED such FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

Had I not I would be in denial of reality. When WE don't respond to the
pressures of foreign influence, guess what we get back? The trick is to
pick and choose when and how we respond. Apparently on this issue it
was chosen to respond as we did.

On the other hand, bobbsie and gregorypoo, "foreign" is not the only
"influence" that was and has been historically brought to bear on this
issue of the death penalty. (By the way, I am proponent of the death
penalty in certain cases, one of which is the murder of a child by
anyone, when the child is under 12......NO exceptions other than proven
long term mental illness).

You have a hard time in the real world, don't you, boys?

Actually, trials for murdering gang bangers as
adults did have a rather large impact. If statistics
say otherwise, then the stats LIE.

Oh brother.

So, tell us, greegor, from what incidences are you drawing such a
conclusion...that "trials for muderting gang bangers as adults have a
rather large impact?" What I've seen, right up close, having lived in
the hood, is that the number of gang related killings go up and down
independent of the death penalty (presumably what you are referring
to). It seems to be seasonal, and especially responsive to "turf"
invasions from distant cities.

Yah know, the LA gangs coming to a new town?

We have strayed far from constitutional provisions regardless of
outside
influences.

Oh dear. A lecture from our constitutional scholar, bobber the judge.

Although age is not mentioned we deny kids many of the constitution
provisions that USED to be recognized.

Oh. Which ones would those be?

And who is this "we" you are referring to? Parents? Teachers? CPS? The
cops? Your local farmers?

As a distinct group, parents are no longer constitutionally
protected...
and the traditional family is an endangered species.

Nonsense as to constitutional protection, and the reason for any
endangerment has nothing at all to do with the constitution and the
law, but with lifestyle changes. We are a 'successful' country in the
sense that OUR highest priority is "self."

We are, baby boomers being the obvious favored class, able to indulge
ourselves individualy like no one but kings and princes have been able
to in the past.

And we seem to chose, whereas others with more values placed on the
collective of community, family, state, etc. do not, to hold more
precious the idea that the individual is the highest value over all
other forms of life and living.

Although I agree the death penality should not apply to young
children I
beleive the Supreme County is on a slippery slope when they
determined a
child's brain is not fully developed as a reason for not executing
children.

Oh?

Care to explain how that works? Defend the execution of someone for
acting without the capacity for decision making that others have, and
show how this slippery slope works and where you expect it to take us?

The supreme court has toyed with the death penality in many various
ways and
I doubt they will ever get it right.

"Toyed?"

Well, the states have "toyed" with it for some time now, about 300
years in this country, and the fact they have such diversity between
the states in how they apply, who they apply to, and what they apply
for, that the Supreme Court has been called on many times to deal with
this issue.

I believe that IS the intent of the supreme court..and if you intend on
actually having something happen, rather than just listen to the rocks
in a hollow gourd sound your head is making, you will have to look to
the supreme court to doing it.

"Cruel and unusual" are subjective terms yet they continue to define
with
some degree of specificity was it, and what is not.


Bobber, you are a riot. Objectivity and subjectively aren't much bound
up in specific words, but refer to interpretations by observers and
actors upon such "terms."

If I see someone cut off someone else's head, I can say with assurance
that I am accurate and objective, "that was a cruel and unusual act,"
can I not?

I'm not living in a land where this is common...so it would be
"unusual," right?

And last I heard removal of one's head is considered, in my culture,
and I suspect, even where it is practice, "cruel." In fact that is the
point...to do something so cruel and unusual that it shocks and
terrifies.

Gosh, I wonder if you think "terrorist" is then a subjective term, or
could it, under some circumstances be and objective interpretation?

I think it's cruel to send someone to prison for life, or even 20
years,
because he/she comitted a non-violent crime but it is no longer
unusual.

Yep. Now please fit that into your prior claims.

The constitution is suppposed to protect us from government but more
and
more we are seeing legislators designing government as a
protection
agency.

And you are either a liar, or stupid as mush.

Please define "protection agency."

If we look to foreign government their people have enjoyed the most
freedoms.

Oh?

What countries would you be referring to? I don't know of one that
doesn't have some minority group or another, just like the minority
group of phony balony CPS reformers (mostly child abusers that got
caught), that would disagree with you.

In the last 30 years or so, it is the U.S. government that has
influenced and extended the reach of even foreign government.

This appears to be similar to your "explanation" of the difference
between "composite" and "profile" in LE investigative work.

It's interesting to note which foreign governments are influencing
ours.

Hmmm....I can hardly wait for this revelation.

In
the African countries property is valued far beyond life.. and
vigilante
justice is common-place. Steal a man's property it's instant death.
Kill a
another person 'unlawfully' and the jail sentence is measured in
weeks.

Your point?

In the middle-east reputation, honor, or sense of family is all
important. Screw with an unmarried daughter or sister regarless of
age and
death is instant.

Yes, they are known even to kill their females when the female was
raped. Tsk. What has this to do with the banning of the death penalty
for minors in the US?

In both these instances.. it is not the government that imposes the
death
penality.. it is the people. Governments rarely execute except for
crimes
against the state and even those are rare.

And you propose.........?

At another level, sometimes contradictory, we attempt to impose our
'moral'
values on European countries through bribes and threats forgetting,
once
again, the people should be protected from government and not
subject to
additional sanctions.

Yep. It's a problem for people that consider themselves to be moral.
What do you think. Are the ayatollahs or us the more rightful heirs to
the title "moral?"

bobb

Gee, bobb, and greegor, this has been swell. You guys should be invited
to speak at graduate seminars on political science. I'll see if I can
arrange something. Greegor, bring along your Motion, and that wonderful
testimony to the House Ways & Means committee. That'll wow 'em!

Kane

As for our interventions in other peoples politics and struggles: I
sure wish the French wouldn't have helped up in our revolution, and we
still had King George's sucessors telling us what to do, like Canada
and the rest of the commonwealth...oh, and Britain, of course.

Here's what's been happening, boys. And we have always intervened when
we as a nation took a mind to. We wouldn't have been in WWII had we not
done so in both Europe and the Pacific.

You speakin' any Japanese or German as a requirement, do yah?

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=245512005

These folks, and more in the middle east are going to do just what the
Ayatollahs fear most........go for democracy. I do hope it will be
representative democracy, such as ours, tailored to their people. It
makes twits such as you soooooo ****ed off, and gives you something
babble about.

Boys, if we lived in some other countries you think have more "freedom"
than we do, along the way you would have been taken out and shot. Just
because you disagree with the government.

I doubt very much there is any danger of that here. What do you think?

**** you two are stupid.

Kane