If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
Thank you. I've been around a lot of liberals in high school, college, organizations and online forums. I prefer the more variegated approach of identifying different kinds of liberals and conservatives, but it's also interesting to think about core liberal qualities as well.Originally Posted by Locke9-05
Read the Forum Rules
"When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."
"In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."
- David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush
"This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."
- Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial
I thought of one more principle I believe in that I think of as a Liberal Principle:
A strategic justice system. I believe the purpose of the justice system is not to provide the public with a feeling of satisfaction through revenge, but rather to keep crime rates as low as possible at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. Therefore I think a justice system should not be a “justice system” per se, but rather a “crime reduction system.” This strategic understanding of justice is apathetic to what criminals “deserve.” It only cares about reducing theft, violence etc. As a result of this paradigm, I oppose the death penalty, because I have never seen any evidence that it lowers crime rates.
I disagree with this, because I think that the death penalty serves to get rid of people who have committed the most heinous of offenses against innocent human beings. It's not so much that they deserve to die--they do, but I don't think that's all of why they should be executed--, it's more that society deserves to be free of them. If society does not execute murderers, then the tax payers have to pay for the commodities they enjoy. The latter of the two choices is not only illogical, it is unfair. For instance, there are many many homeless veterans who have served their country in war time and would absolutely love to have a roof over their heads at night, air conditioning in the summer, heat in the winter, a toilet, showers, exercise equipment, a yard to exercise in every once in a while, movies to watch sometimes, and even internet access (in some cases). But to some, it seems that they don't deserve that unless they're ruthless killers.
Ahh, that's actually the best argument in favour of the death penalty I've ever read.
Anyway, I was just using the death penalty as an example.
Thanks, I've contemplated my position on that for quite a long time. I appreciate the compliment.
I understand, I was just voicing an opinion that happened to coincide with your example.
The death penalty has been proven as racist. It is more expensive than jail. And a person that is in hell in their mind in jail...seems more punishing than to put them out of their misery (mentally most murderers are mentally off) . That seems a little like letting someone out of being grounded. I don't believe in the death penalty however because it a group of people are killing one person and saying it is ok in this case. When I tell my kids its not ok to kill....I mean the government is included.
happy.gif
Last Tuesday night I watched the election results and basically felt as if I had been stabbed in the gut. For the first time I understood that fear -- you know, the fear that has been swimming through our ultra-conservative population across the country since Obama was elected in 2008 -- that the country is about to see some very, very dark days. I sat there with this ache in my belly wondering how long before we bleed out. I used to think that that fear was absurd and irrational, but since the shoe is on the other foot now, I can finally understand.
The Romney sweep of those 5 states was known well beforehand. It came as a surprise to practically no one.
If you think this country is ultraconservative, then your views must be ultraliberal.
As for the whole "bleed out" thing, that's hyperbole. It's the same kind of rhetoric used by Glenn Beck and survivalists.
As for fear, I think one can be legitimately fearful of a Romney presidency. Poor people would be devastated by the Ryan Plan and maybe a Ryan Plan II. The Supreme Court would be stacked with more right wing ideologues, crippling it for decades.
Read the Forum Rules
"When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."
"In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."
- David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush
"This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."
- Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial
That's fine for you to believe. I would, however, like to see evidence of the assertion that "the death penalty is more expensive than jail." I recently looked up yearly incarceration costs for a single inmate and it was staggering. Also, even if the particular method used to execute death row inmates is expensive, there are remedies for that. The number one remedy I can think of is a 50 cent bullet through the brain. That's about as inexpensive as it gets, especially when compared with incarceration costs. Also, like I already said, it's not even primarily about punishing them or "serving up a dish of cold justice," it's about eliminating them from society so that they can never be considered even potentially threatening whatsoever. It's about removing the most heinous of offenders from the prison system so that the cells that they would otherwise take up can be used to incarcerate those serving out lesser sentences for lesser crimes. Primarily, it's about practicality. At least that's how I see it.
The death penalty is not about the money, of course.
A murderer should die. Not for the sake of revenge but because it is how we can protect our families. This is the penalty for man’s sin.
But why does it cost that much money?. i heard that giving a death penalty for an inmate can cost up to millions.
Capital cases cost more from the start because case law mandates that a defendant facing a possible death sentence is entitled to two attorneys rather than just one. Most capital defendants are indigent which means this cost is absorbed by the state. Capital defendants are entitled also to representation by relevant experts in their cases (investigators, mitigation specialists, psychologists, etc.) all paid for at state expense. Capital trials usually last longer than non capital trials.
Additionally, and probably more important with respect to driving costs up, there is the appeals process.
Virtute duce, comite fortuna!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote