Harehunter

Actually, I looked forward to being called on to serve my public duty, probably for the same reason I volunteered for military service. I found the experience quite educational. I have regrettably had to defer from jury duty because of my Parkinson's, but now that it is under control, I look forward to serving again.

Slarty, you are correct in that most science is done by people who adhere strictly to the scientific method with the resulting conclusions being more often accurate than not. I'm just saying that there are some people who, for some unkown motive, will attempt to prove their assertion by presenting some study as scientific proof. It is those people I distrust. Maybe it is because they are too closely associated with politicians, or who have something to gain financially from such 'science'.

I noticed that as well. There are too many questions on that poll where I would rather have had a "It depends on the individual circumstances." I guess that attitude is what has earned me a place on several juries.

-Alorael, I would have to concur with you in every regard.

The reason for such high taxes on cigarettes is to try to discourage their use; it was the intention of the 'nanny state' politicians that if they could raise the cost of cigarettes high enough, fewer people could afford them and would have to give them up in order to pay for other necessities. Since prohibition did not work for alcohol, they figured that prohibition on tobacco would meet with equal failure.

 

How successful is this tactic? From what I see, it has made a little impact, but not a lot. Then there is the issue of 'second hand smoke' regulations. This appears to me to be another case of the 'nanny state' politicians concocting a junk science proof to support their cause.

 

I have studied science and statistics, and I know how experiments and studies can be manipulated to show a 'proof' that the researcher wishes to support. Reference the 'proof' that saccharin caused cancer; but only if you consumed some nonsensically high amount. I question the models they use; do they take into account other factors besides being around other smokers, such as ozone or other such chemicals, or exposure to asbestos, or a myriad of other possible causes of lung cancer? How did they choose their samples for their statistical studies, what proofs did they use, what was the deviation? I could go on but in short, I have a basic distrust of scientific studies.

"I love you,
you love me,
We're a happy family..."

Curse you Purple Dragon! Now my head rings with tunes of inanity!

Economic Left/Right: -0.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.10

 

Surprised? So was I.

Like I said, it is stupid to use drugs. I cannot and do not advocate for their use.

 

But to try to prohibit stupid behavior is to undertake a very expensive effort that can never succeed. Sisyphus has a better chance of succeeding than the DEA.

Slarty, Lilith, and all the rest of you:

You may find this post to be most controversial. Please do not take this as an endorsement to do what I consider to be very stupid.

 

A big cause of crime is related to the 'war on drugs'. It reminds me of the time of prohibition. Make something illegal to use, manufacture or sell, and an entire industry of crime syndicates was formed. These syndicates began committing more than just the crimes related to the distribution of alcohol, but theft and murder became commonplace. Prohibition was one failed experiment to try to regulate stupid.

 

I do not advocate the use of drugs under any circumstance. I do indulge in the occasional drink, I have never smoked, and I have never used illegal drugs. However, I have heard in interview after interview with cops that pot users are about the least offensive people they have to arrest. Other drugs cause far more violent incidents. There is good reason to restrict the use of such drugs; they can be the cause of crimes of violence against other people. If weed were to be made legal, it could be regulated and taxed. There are even some indications that it could be medically beneficial for some things It would also be one less source of revenue for the criminal gangs that have taken over the border towns in Mexico; gangs that have replaced all law and order in those towns, and are bringing their violence into the U.S.

 

It is stupid to use drugs that can destroy your body, but it is stupid to try to regulate stupid behavior. It clogs our courts and our jails. It brings non-violent criminals into close proximity to hardened, violent ones. It costs unknown amounts in law enforcement, all in vain, in what amounts to fighting a losing war. Education is the only deterrent against doing drugs. Rehabilitation is the proper treatment, not incarceration. Most importantly, it takes parents who take an active part in teaching their children how to succeed without them.

What's a "Barney"?

I would just like to see more done to rehabilitate those who are likely to be paroled or set free. Train them in a skill so that they have less reason to re-offend, and instead become a contributing member of our society. As for those who are in for longer terms, they should be able to do something to contribute to their upkeep. Most people go to work to pay for their own food, clothes and shelter. Most people pay taxes to provide services shared by the community, state and nation.

 

And I think that there are too many people put in prison for crimes that only affect themselves. I don't think it is right to try to regulate being stupid.

Taxes for roads is an investment that serves every one in the community. Taxes for the water and sewage services provided by the county. Taxes for schools to teach our children and re-teach our adults who need new skills. Taxes for defense so we can continue to enjoy the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Taxes for Social Security Retirement. Taxes to fund scientific and medical research. These things, and many, many more, benefit our society and improve it. What does a convict in prison contribute to our society? I accept that we have to pay taxes to house, feed, and clothe them. I accept that we have to pay taxes to pay for the training and salaries of the guards who keep them. These things I accept as the cost for the protection of our society from these criminals. But it bears no fruit.

Sounds like a bunch of cut-ups to me.

Some people have a closet-like space where they keep food, called a pantry.

I know that sometimes my jokes are a bit of a stretch sometimes, but I grew up playing a "dictionary game" with my mother; she would hear a word she didn't know, and would ask me. If I knew, I would tell her. More often than not, I did not know, so therefore I got to go look it up in the unabridged Websters Dictionary we had, and then I had to go back and tell my mom. We made a few interesting discoveries during the course of that game.

That is a good sentiment. However, too often this sort of thing happens.

As to the responses to my comment about the cost of imprisonment, I thank you all. I have considered all of these things, especially the cost of numerous, mandatory in Texas, appeals that are required before an execution can be carried out. We cannot treat prisoners inhumanely. It just seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars.

BTW Trenton, I like your new moniker.

That is the standard in Texas. It is actually a second trial to prove the question of recidivism beyond a reasonable doubt. And I could not agree more thoroughly that it should be used sparingly.

It still burns me that those people who are sentenced to life in prison have become a burden on society, instead of an asset. I would not be opposed to anything that could change that equation.

How does this relate to the James Byrd case I was talking about? Did you read the link I cited?

That is what I do frequently, and only include the text to which I am referring. Sometimes I don't, because I am just posting to the last comment.

BTW, I had no control over the pun-tree. I just planted the seed, and the blooming thing grew on its own. Speaking of pun-trees, I think I'll go raid mine to see what there is to eat for breakfast.

I cannot speak to the Troy Davis case because I don't know anything about it and don't have the time to research it due to 60 hour work weeks.

I have served on a jury in a murder trial. I won't go into any detail, but in this case the D.A. could not prosecute for the death penalty. Why? Because there was no way to prove that this man was the primary assailant or if he was just an accomplice. During the voire dire, the D.A. explained some of the rules concerning the application for the death penalty. These rules were explained again during the trial. After the trial, both the D.A. and the defending lawyer came in and told us many things about the case that could not be presented during the trial, things that would have affected a jury to more likely choose the death penalty had it been an option. Why was the evidence withheld? Rules of Evidence did not allow it. For example, the defendant and his traveling partner had a long history of assaults and thefts. This evidence would have been allowed during the punishment phase of the trial, basically another trial in itself, but not allowed in the first part because it had no bearing on the one crime being tried at the time.

I have served on three other juries as well, both civil and criminal. I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the law, but I have had some exposure to some of the details that most people will never know. That is how I know that only the most serious murders are ever presented with the option for the death penalty, at least in Texas. Laws are different in other states, so I won't speak about those. From what excruciatingly little I have read about the Troy Davis case, Georgia may have problems with their legal system, and most especially with their appeals court, but I don't live there.

On the other hand, the James Byrd Jr. case in Texas has been very much in the news, not only at the time of the crime but again recently as the first defendant was put to death yesterday. Knowing what I do, and I followed the story very closely, I would have to agree with the jury with regard to the following:


Alorael, you are right that in most cases, people convicted and imprisoned for their crimes do change.
But in some cases, such as this, there was no way to believe at that time that Brewer could be rehabilitated, which was confirmed this past few weeks. During a recent interview with Brewer, he not only showed no remorse, he said that he would have done it again.

I do not advocate the application the death penalty for most cases. But the Jasper D.A., a devout Catholic who doesn't like the taking of any life, said that this is one of a very few cases for which capital punishment is justified.

In Texas, at least, the District Attorneys have a high bar to reach before they can call for the death penalty. This is on top of the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' for the conviction. Yes, Texas has the highest number of people on death row, and the highest number of executions in the nation. The recent passage into to law of an alternate penalty, life without parole, has diminished that number somewhat.

However, I feel that in some cases the death penalty is completely justifiable as in the James Byrd case .

I know that the son of James Byrd is protesting the execution of his father's murderer, but the nature of the crime, IMHO, warrant's the death penalty.

The last time that happened, we had nested quote pyramids of bad puns, so foul that Slarty had to close the thread. I have mentioned that puns have been banned as WMD's in some countries. (No, I don't think I did, but I should have.)

Sounds like some kind of gigantic reptile.

There is a way to quit the Anama without using the editor. Just train one of your characters to cast Mage spells. However there is a pretty hefty penalty doing it that way. When you joined the Anama, you lost all your Mage skill, and all the Mage spells you knew. In exchange you got extra levels in Priest skill, plus most of the Priest spells including some of the highest level ones.

The penalty for leaving the Anama within the game, is this; you lose all but the basic level of Priest skill and all of the upper level spells. The worst part is, you don't get back any of the Mage skill or spells you gave up to begin with, so you wind up having to rebuild ~all~ of your spell casters. Neat, huh?

@Dantius,

One good turn deserves another.

Does anyone teach the old line diagrams that are used to parse the syntactic structure of sentences any more? Once I saw those, I became hooked onto the history of how languages developed.