Comments on: A REAL HEAD SCRATCHER FROM THE TIMES

By: susan

susan — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:03:08 +0000

Isn’t the reason for the decline in crime rate due to women are legally extermininating future criminals? You mean all this time crime may actually be in decline because criminals are actually kept in prison? I suppose the NY Times needs to let those criminals out in order to sell a story. One day the NY Times will face a devastating conflict, how will they sell news if humanity actually achieves useful idiot Utopia?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:00:43 +0000

I am opposed to a mandatory life sentence for any crime. Before you get your dander up though, I am Pro death penalty. I feel that a life sentence does not give the criminal a reason to reform. Punishment is the job of prisons, and reform is the responsibility of the individual. I would mandate a maximum single sentence of 20 years, and a max combined of 25. If a person cannot be adequately punished in 25 years they should be executed and hastily. I am against lethal injection, unless the injected lethiality is a 180 grain hunk of lead. The constitution says cruel AND unusual. Too many of our judges are too stupid to comprehend the diffrence between the words AND & OR. I believe in sentencing guidelines and that any sentence that is a downward departure from those guidelines constitutes aiding and abeting and should be prosecuted.
The death penalty should be mandatory in all cases of 1st degree murder, forcible rape, kidnaping, and child molestation.
I also believe in the execution of three time felons, and that they should be executed in a manor that is inhumane. I would also require that they be executed in front of the prison population.
Last, I would make a mandatory death sentence for prison revolt and insurection, including jail breaking.

By: Diggers Realm

Diggers Realm — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:30:18 +0000

Diggers Realm Super Silly Searches, Statistics and Superstars For June-September 2005

There was a lapse in my coverage from June-August here at Super Silly due to a move from California to New York, so I’ll be covering the 4 month period here. Diggers Realm Stats And Growth For The Months Of…

By: K

Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:29:34 +0000

Years ago a lawyer friend told me that in practice “life” meant unless you were paroled.

The law is full of words and outright falsehoods that the layman seldom notices.

e.g. Pardoned felons can say they have no convictions.
Birth certificates of adoptees say they are the natural children of those adopting them.
After your criminal records are expunged you can lie to your hearts content, and even sue anyone who tells the truth.

The rules vary by state. So I don’t say all these things happen always or everywhere. But don’t expect facts from legal or government documents. They only reflect what the law, often with good intentions, puts in them.

By: Jim King

Jim King — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:44:11 +0000

The Times article further exemplifies why there is a very good reason the left is called the hand-wringing segment of our political society. Trouble is, they wring their hands over those issues which most on the right consider to be proper and just for good, correct, truthful reasons.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:02:39 +0000

The simple fact that crime is down while the prisons are full is proof that locking up people who commit crimes is an effective way to prevent future crimes. The looney left CANNOT understand that the reason crime is down is because those who committed lots of crime are behind bars. Really. It’s not that they just won’t admit it, they really don’t understand it. Hence, they agitate for releasing prisoners because crime is down.

They cannot get beyond this question, which they invariably ask, “If crime is down, then why are we locking up so many people?” They get the verb wrong, and they don’t realize it. Crime is down because we “have locked up” so many people, not because we “are locking up” so many people. They also get the noun wrong. Crime is down because we have locked up so many “criminals”, i.e “people who have been convicted of committing crimes.”

By: Knemon

Knemon — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:29:01 +0000

What I don’t understand is this: were they trying to pick a *sympathetic* example? Surely they could have done better than that …