June 26th, 2008 09:27 AM
I'm puzzled why a thread about the SCOUTS ruling Death penalty was not allowed for rapist was merged with one about a politician ranting about Massachusetts trying to implement mandatory sentencing?
Just curious. They are two separate topics.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
June 26th, 2008 09:42 AM
I'll have to disagree with you there, SD. Truth is, criminals, as a whole, have limited ability to draw valid cause-effect relationships and have limited ability to delay self-gratification. While the DP might deter a robber from killing (that's not "his bag") it will likely have little effect on the rapist/murderer/child molester. Regardless, the main point is that the DP (in the instances of incorrigibly violent offenders) is not socially-preventative or punitive, it's individually-preventative.
It certainly provides a deterrence. To think criminals are unconcerned with consequences or getting caught is naive.
The liberal/sociological argument against this is, "Well, if you're socially-cleansing by state-mandated executions, what is to prevent that from being applied to any minority that society finds offensive...?" And, the answer is: the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
The sociological "problem" is that emphasis is placed on the rights of the deviant(s) rather than the rights of the citizen(used, since "citizen" implies a generally compliant, participatory, non-grossly deviant individual.) This is because sociologists view crime as individual response to social inequity, therefore the individual may not be held to the standards of the society since the standards are "unfair" (circular reasoning at its best.)
June 26th, 2008 10:41 AM
I almost posted that story here originally but I made it it's own thread.
Originally Posted by 4my son
I 'think' it was merged due to the "child rape" context. Both are diffrent diffrent, individual, and independent reports ....but.... both about child rape.
I'm just as mad as I can get at Rep. James Fagan for saying what he did.
One of the worst moods I ever remember myself being in as an adult was during and after a child pornography case that I pulled bailiff duty for. I know it's wrong and I've seen the affects of this horendous crime........but to stand there and see it as evidence was presented.............
Either way, either story.......SCOTUS and Rep. James Fagan are, IMO, wrong concerning this subject matter.
Last edited by goldshellback; June 26th, 2008 at 12:00 PM.
"Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008
(Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay
By fox2102 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 18th, 2009, 11:35 PM
By falcon1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: June 28th, 2008, 05:03 PM
By prawls in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 18th, 2007, 12:29 PM
By aznav in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 12th, 2007, 10:48 AM
Search tags for this page
nra courses near franklin va 23851
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors