We know how to reduce murders, and it is not the trump way

[NiftyNiblick]

(I'm going to guess that it was pretty easy to understand why "your" trials were hung juries and mistrials...wasn't it? )

I'm too old to remember now.

 

[TOP]

I'm too old to remember now.

I understand...

 

[Nordberg]

They're not in jail for not committing a crime... And don't miss the point.The system is not President Trump's system...

Not the point at all. You Trumpys say people who are in jail are guilty of crimes.

Documentation is the key...

You had me until that "Harris" remark...She's never done Anything properly that I have seen or read about... seriously...nothing...

So she did several public high-pressure visible jobs and she is bad because you, who have no real knowledge of what she was doing, did not see her ever do anything proper? I know, you do not need evidence or fact.
Did you see her questioning people in committee when she was a senator? Can you judge her court appearances?
Seriously, you are terrible at posting, devoid of logic or fact.

 

[moon]

That's with war. Law enforcement is different.

Duplicitous tosser.

 

[TOP]

Not the point at all. You Trumpys say people who are in jail are guilty of crimes.

So she did several public high-pressure visible jobs and she is bad because you, who have no real knowledge of what she was doing, did not see her ever do anything proper? I know, you do not need evidence or fact.
Did you see her questioning people in committee when she was a senator? Can you judge her court appearances?
Seriously, you are terrible at posting, devoid of logic or fact.

If she's so spectacularly successful, why is she hiding from publicappearances? If she can ask questions, answer them, and handle high pressure jobs, why is she avoiding all of that? Memorized, scripted speeches prove absolutely nothing...anyone can do that...She can't speak on her own....and they won't let her...
She's even afraid to appear at the Al Smith dinner...she's such a phony coward...We deserve so much better....

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Duplicitous tosser.

Wrong. Warfare isn't "fair." It is vicious, and largely fought without rules. What rules there are, are tact agreements and often not enforcable.

On the other hand, law enforcement is all about rules. There are laws and procedures to be followed to ensure fairness and even-handed treatment.

 

[Nordberg]

If she's so spectacularly successful, why is she hiding from publicappearances? If she can ask questions, answer them, and handle high pressure jobs, why is she avoiding all of that? Memorized, scripted speeches prove absolutely nothing...anyone can do that...She can't speak on her own....and they won't let her...
She's even afraid to appear at the Al Smith dinner...she's such a phony coward...We deserve so much better....

She is because you believe it? She is scheduled for a 60 Minutes interview. Keep tuned. She wants another debate and Trump is refusing. Trump is such a coward and you are such a fool.

 

[Lionfish]

I disagree....the process is so flawed it's really pretty impossible to select a jury that can be fair and unbiased....but that doesn't seem to matter anymore...
Anyone with a job or a life doesn't want to be inconvenienced, and it's very easy to get excused...If you're honest...
Teachers used to be excused....Not any more...
I've always been excused, but now they make you appear from Monday until Thursday...ridiculous, but you really get a chance to see how system has deteriorated...
(I'm going to guess that it was pretty easy to understand why "your" trials were hung juries and mistrials...wasn't it? )

The old communist forgets taht most criminals never come to a jury trial. The DA's plea deal the thugs and they are out and back to work with a slap on the wrist.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

trump said Boston would be a mess, because they refused to follow his idea of a war on neighborhoods. Well, right now Boston is going to be the safest big city in America. The murder rate has dropped by 50%.

Having the police raid neighborhoods, stop and frisk, and bang heads, does little to nothing to reduce violence. It does make it impossible for anyone in the neighborhood asking for help from the police. The trump way does not work.

It has been 20 years since the Boston police have shot an unarmed Black man. That buys a lot of trust that other police departments do not have. But most major cities in blue states have falling murder rates. Philadelphia has a 40% drop, Baltimore has a 32% drop, New York has a 13% drop, Chicago has a 10% drop, etc.

How Boston became the safest big city in America

Murder is declining across the country, but Boston has led the way

www.economist.com

I think it has more to do with the precipitous and massive decline in population that Boston has seen in the last 20 years... Until recently, Boston saw a more than 50% drop in population since the late 1950's. Philly, Baltimore, Chicago, and NYC, likewise are seeing big drops in population. Less people = less crime...

 

[TOP]

She is because you believe it? She is scheduled for a 60 Minutes interview. Keep tuned. She wants another debate and Trump is refusing. Trump is such a coward and you are such a fool.

Why is she afraid to go to the Al smith dinner? Or sit down in a town hall and actually answer questions And talk about her policies... If she has any... 60 Minutes taped and edited doesn't count...

 

[Walt]

There's also the problem of making executions easier and spread across more crimes. Trump wanted the death penalty for drug dealers. Okay, so if a drug dealer is caught by a policemen, why give up when shooting the cop increases their chance of avoiding prison? Why not? The penalty is the same.

It becomes a threat to force people to plead guilty, and to punish the innocent.

The alt right will claim that they will not punish all accused drug dealers that badly. For instance, if Vance ever gets prosecuted for his past, he would be let off with a slap on the wrist. So in a trump future, the prosecutor can come to a defendant and offer 1 year in prison if he pleads guilty, and the death penalty if convicted. Any guilty person would take that in a heart beat. In fact, many innocent people would not want to risk death, but some will. That means that only the innocent get executed.

 

[Walt]

I don't know Walt, but watching someone hang, is not a pleasant sight.

I would think watching a human get killed would be an unpleasant sight... But then I think about what we watch on TV and in the movies. For our entertainment we watch people killing each other. It is mostly fictional people, but it is what entertains humans. Imagine how many thousands of killings you have witnessed, and then think that throughout much of human history, no one saw that much killing.

They say that all that violence witnessed causes people to act violently. But that violence is just fictional violence, not like the real violence of an execution...

And I would think it would be a deterrence because no one wants to die like that.

If you try to murder someone, there is a real chance they (or others) will fight back, and you will be killed. When the police attempt to arrest a murderer, they are often forced to kill the murderer. It is just the way of the world.

So if potential murderers had long term thinking, and did not want to risk dying themselves, it is already taken care of.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It becomes a threat to force people to plead guilty, and to punish the innocent.

The alt right will claim that they will not punish all accused drug dealers that badly. For instance, if Vance ever gets prosecuted for his past, he would be let off with a slap on the wrist. So in a trump future, the prosecutor can come to a defendant and offer 1 year in prison if he pleads guilty, and the death penalty if convicted. Any guilty person would take that in a heart beat. In fact, many innocent people would not want to risk death, but some will. That means that only the innocent get executed.

That's another reason. Do you favor abolishing it completely or restricting it to only the most serious crimes with incontrovertible evidence? Because of our "rush to judgment" laws, it's easier to get on the TSA terrorist watchlist than to get off of it. I support Red Flag laws, but unlike the TSA rules, I want to ensure that it's as easy, if not easier, to have one's rights restored than it was to remove them. To be clear, I do believe there are instances where a person's behavior results a in restriction of their rights, but such instances should be well covered by law and protection of the innocent....not just the fears of the innocents.

The Alt-Right lies a lot. I don't trust them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I would think watching a human get killed would be an unpleasant sight... But then I think about what we watch on TV and in the movies. For our entertainment we watch people killing each other. It is mostly fictional people, but it is what entertains humans. Imagine how many thousands of killings you have witnessed, and then think that throughout much of human history, no one saw that much killing.

They say that all that violence witnessed causes people to act violently. But that violence is just fictional violence, not like the real violence of an execution...


If you try to murder someone, there is a real chance they (or others) will fight back, and you will be killed. When the police attempt to arrest a murderer, they are often forced to kill the murderer. It is just the way of the world.

So if potential murderers had long term thinking, and did not want to risk dying themselves, it is already taken care of.

George Calin's bit about sex vs violence on TV/Movies is a classic.
American culture still has a very strong Puritanical mindset. "Burn the Witch" attitudes still run strong. The definition of "witch" changes, but the angst of certain groups still runs deep in their social DNA.
I loved the Three Stooges but never tried to poke anyone's eyes out, singly or with the two-finger poke of Moe.
Note that on most forums* frown deeply upon showing a human female nipple, but have no problem showing dead, shredded, decapitated or otherwise mutilated human beings to prove an Alt-Right political point.

IMHO, people can be accustomed to violence but not necessarily become violent on their own. The survivors learn the difference between killing to save one's life and dying out of failure to fight back. The dead don't say much. LOL Agreed, most JPP MAGAts and others on JPP are toothless, demented poor souls. Still, if even one out of a thousand was an enemy of the Constitution, I support hunting them down and neutralizing them.

Agreed. It's human nature to fight back. Some more than others. The problem here, IMHO, is a matter of perceptions. Why are the MAGAts so fearful that they are willing to destroy the Constitution in order to protect only their rights? Rights they feel are being stolen from them. Why are they afraid? From my POV, that's a sociological question, not just a political one.

Both actual and potential murderers put themselves above others. We all do it to an extent, but murderous people are one end of an extreme. The other extreme being those who give up without a fight. Like racism, most of this is cultural, not genetic.


*all counting only the dozen or so forums I've regularly participated upon.

 

[Walt]

Do you favor abolishing it completely or restricting it to only the most serious crimes with incontrovertible evidence?

In the modern world, I see no point in the death penalty. There was a time that food was in short supply. In almost every society, some starvation was expected. If you fed a criminal, that would mean someone else would starve to death. Under those circumstances, the death penalty starts seeming the less immoral solution.

With Hitler, or Bin Laden, a living prisoner can become the focus of millions of supporters. Under those extremely unusual circumstances, the death penalty starts making sense. That being said, a dead martyr is often worse than a living prisoner. And those situations only come along rarely.

It might feel satisfying to see those who have done us wrong killed, but that does not make it good policy, or good law. I drive in NJ several times a week, and part of me wants to see anyone who cuts me off killed... I certainly do not support the death penalty for traffic violations.

 

[Walt]

This isn't about Donald Trump and what your party did in New York.

New York City drove murder rates to a record low. They bumped up a bit, but now are returning to record low territory.

Now Boston is becoming the safest place in America.

Sadly, that is no impressive compared to many other countries. America has a murder rate 14 times higher than Italy. Italy has a lot of immigrants, poverty, organized crime, etc. Still Italy is 14 times better than us.

The Italian Constitution abolished the death penalty in 1948. There are no exceptions. The last execution was in 1947.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In the modern world, I see no point in the death penalty. There was a time that food was in short supply. In almost every society, some starvation was expected. If you fed a criminal, that would mean someone else would starve to death. Under those circumstances, the death penalty starts seeming the less immoral solution.

With Hitler, or Bin Laden, a living prisoner can become the focus of millions of supporters. Under those extremely unusual circumstances, the death penalty starts making sense. That being said, a dead martyr is often worse than a living prisoner. And those situations only come along rarely.

It might feel satisfying to see those who have done us wrong killed, but that does not make it good policy, or good law. I drive in NJ several times a week, and part of me wants to see anyone who cuts me off killed... I certainly do not support the death penalty for traffic violations.

Death is easy. Living in a small cell for all one's life is harder. Still, if a person is a clear and present danger to other citizens, then execution has a clear point.

Martyrs is a good point, but as the US wisely did the bin Laden, dumping him into the sea negates a focus point (i.e. grave). It doesn't completely stop the idea, but it does work. Another is prisoners. One reason the Palestinian terrorists took hostages was to trade them. IIRC, their first offer was a 3 to 1 ratio of three terrorists per innocent civilian. I'm not a fan of negotiating with terrorists. I'd rather make them martyrs with bodies that are never found.

Yes, blood lust is a natural human trait. Revenge is a natural human emotion. Agreed about policy and law. The mutual protection of all our rights is essential to the survival of any republic.

 

[Walt]

like j6 victims... i see....

The victims of the attack on the Capitol Building have not been locked up. Many of the perpetrators of the attack have been locked up. They have all had habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in court. El Salvador has suspended habeas corpus.

Bukele has arrested between 1 and 2% of the people in El Salvador without any access to courts. There are schools where all the boys were arrested. The economy is taking a hit from the number of workers incarcerated.

 

[Walt]

I think it has more to do with the precipitous and massive decline in population that Boston has seen in the last 20 years... Until recently, Boston saw a more than 50% drop in population since the late 1950's. Philly, Baltimore, Chicago, and NYC, likewise are seeing big drops in population. Less people = less crime...

So the murder rate dropped by 50% in the last year, because the population dropped by 50%.... You really believe that?

Less people does not drop the murder rate. It often raises the murder rate. The murder rate is the number of per capita murders. If people are fleeing a city, the least likely to murder are going to be the first to leave.

In the last 20 years, Boston's population has risen by more than 10%. If you go back to the 1950's, you get a larger population, but not twice as high as you claim.

The highest population New York has ever had was in 2020. It had a million more people than in the 1950's. The population has dipped a bit, but still is far higher than it was 20 years ago.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So the murder rate dropped by 50% in the last year, because the population dropped by 50%.... You really believe that?

Less people does not drop the murder rate. It often raises the murder rate. The murder rate is the number of per capita murders. If people are fleeing a city, the least likely to murder are going to be the first to leave.

In the last 20 years, Boston's population has risen by more than 10%. If you go back to the 1950's, you get a larger population, but not twice as high as you claim.

The highest population New York has ever had was in 2020. It had a million more people than in the 1950's. The population has dipped a bit, but still is far higher than it was 20 years ago.

Care to share some sources proving that?