BoatBanter.com - direct from Florida

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - direct from Florida (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/24356-direct-florida.html)

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

The risk is minimal. Do you really expect anyone to let a serial
killer out... ooops... well, let's not use that example. g But,
mostly, life in prison without the possibility of parole, means
exactly that. Also, if for example, DNA evidence turns up that
exonerates someone, you don't have to dig them up.

Yeah as I said I agree with you. And given the sloppy evidence used to
convict people I'd be real hesitant about capital punishment. As you
say DNA evidence has shown that certain people couldn't have commited
the crimes they were convicted of. Makes me wonder about the others too
- be interesting to look at the % proven wrong.

PDW

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Quite analogous I'd say, especially since women were denied the right
to vote.

Yeah - right. A century ago, more or less? We're talking about here &
now. Women now make up over 50% of the population and have full
political rights. Stop hiding and stop pretending women can't exercise
their political power if they choose. It's demeaning & insulting to
women.

Well, quite a bit less than a century, but whatever. They do, but
they're hindered at every turn. Blacks have full political rights
also, but are still being disenfranchised on a regular basis.

Can or should? What about the fetus that would only survive a few
minutes, due to some terrible defect?

Jon, get off it. Over 10 years ago I designed, built & still maintain a
database on newborns, all of whom are screened for treatable and
untreatable genetic disorders. The disorder numbers range from around 1
in 15000 to over 1 in 100000, in the tests that are done. The rarer
disorders aren't screened for because the hit rate is too low.

1 in 100000 means how many actual births that would be enforced? Why
put a woman in that position? What about economic or social reasons?
What about rape victims? Do you know how many pregnancies are a result
of rape? Part of the right-wing agenda is to remove a woman's right to
choose, no matter the reasons. You get off it.

The numbers that fall into the category you're trying to drag in are
infinitesimal. So basically your answer is a copout. you don't want to
face up to the inescapable conclusion so you look for ways to wiggle.

I'm not looking for any ways to wiggle. g The fact is that the gov't
has no business forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term.

Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32
week foetus? Yes or no.

Sorry, but it's not quite so simple... it depends on the situation,
something the woman, her diety, and the doctor should decide.

Ah, ok. You're prepared to see a woman abort a baby that could easily
be delivered by c-section or induction and would be completely viable
once delivered, without artificial life support. Got it. There's
another word for that.

Didn't say that. You did. I said "it depends on the situation." If you
can't read, what are you doing here?

Let's try another question. The woman has delivered her baby and
immediately after delivery decides to smother it. Does she have that
right? According to you, she had the right to terminate it a day ago, a
week ago, a month ago..... why not now?

Of course not. That's murder. And, as I said, it should be between
her, her god, and her doctor. I can't predict the situation that would
make it reasonable or unreasonable to terminate the day before she
gives birth. Sorry. But, clearly you can. So tell us? Are there any
situations where she should terminate before giving birth?

Frankly Jon, at that late stage of a pregnancy, it *is* that simple and
all the denialism in the world won't alter it. You're exactly the
obverse of the blanket anti-abortion people and just as morally
bankrupt.

I guess you never heard of partial birth abortions... a very rare
situation, but mostly used to save the life of the woman.

You can call me all the names in the world, but you still can't
justify something that is morally wrong.. namely denying a woman the
right to choose.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:31:54 +1100, Peter Wiley
said:

As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and
amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so
badly out of line?

As I mentioned before, the Federalist Society is indeed making an effort to
do just that with an amendment designed to reign in the blatant legislating
from the bench..

Of the sort like Prisssssilla Owens? That freak of nature shouldn't be on
any bench, except maybe a park bench.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

PDW

In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is a
good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan
where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a
long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do
some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build
cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see the
light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death
penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good example
of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good candidate
for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm

John Cairns

Maybe the same thing will happen to him as what happened to Heffry
Dommer....

"John Cairns" wrote in message
. com...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

PDW

In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is
a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan
where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a
long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do
some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build
cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see
the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death
penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good
example of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good
candidate for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death
penalty.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm

John Cairns

"katysails" wrote in message
...
Maybe the same thing will happen to him as what happened to Heffry
Dommer....

One can only hope.................hasn't happened yet, though he's been in
prison for a long time.
John Cairns
"John Cairns" wrote in message
. com...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

PDW

In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which
is a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in
Michigan where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a
Texas jail-a long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these
parts and do some more killing. The authorities in these parts are
scrambling to build cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to
jail he'll never see the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is
that Texas is a death penalty state, has been for a while, this
criminal's story is a good example of the unfairness of capital
punishment, if there ever was a good candidate for killing, this is the
guy, but he never got the death penalty.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm

John Cairns

Why didn't they hang Charlie Manson?

"John Cairns" wrote in message
. com...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let
them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes'
law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit
crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats
somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the
majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

PDW

In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants,
which is a
good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in
Michigan
where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas
jail-a
long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts
and do
some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to
build
cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never
see the
light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a
death
penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good
example
of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good
candidate
for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm

John Cairns

katysails wrote:

In the total scheme of things, that is not a lot. 3 million people die
every year of tuberculosis. Are you in a panic over that? Approximately
300,000 per year still die of whooping cough....

Who's in a panic? Just pointing out the facts maam. Certainly TB is a more serious disease than the flu, and some people are in panic about it,
particularly in the US. You guys have a veritable epidemic going on down there, it's not safe to ride the subway in NYC, if some dope addict doesn't
cough on you, one runs the risk of being stabbed, shot, mugged, even deafened by some idiot with a boom box the size of a Volkswagon. The one thing
that won't happen is that you will get sat on by Chuckles, he can't make it through the stiles.

Cheers
Marty