Why do we punish criminals?

[Baron1710]

This has been touched on somewhat in a few other posts but I was hoping we could have a discussion on this.

Why do we punish?

To promote safety?

Deterring crime?

Rehabilitation?

Retribution?

I know any answer may include more than one but which one is the most important in your view. What do you think is a Biblical view of punishment?

[RevDWW]

This has been touched on somewhat in a few other posts but I was hoping we could have a discussion on this.

Why do we punish?

To promote safety?

Deterring crime?

Rehabilitation?

Retribution?

I know any answer may include more than one but which one is the most important in your view. What do you think is a Biblical view of punishment?
Do we really punish criminals?

[Baron1710]

Do we really punish criminals?

Last I checked we had a pretty large prison population, we still execute people, yes I think it is safe to say we punish.

[rgcraig]

Just my two cents, but if we actually punished them like China does their prisoners, we'd probably have a few thousand empty jail cells.

Do the crime - pay the time in China is a true threat and they don't want to go back to prison.

There are too many repeat offenders in our prison system to say that rehab occurs.

[Baron1710]

Just my two cents, but if we actually punished them like China does their prisoners, we'd probably have a few thousand empty jail cells.

Do the crime - pay the time in China is a true threat and they don't want to go back to prison.

There are too many repeat offenders in our prison system to say that rehab occurs.

So you would say retribution? You earned it, so we are going to give you what you deserve?

[mizpeh]

The law is not for the righteous. The punishments of the law are to instill fear into the hearts of those who may try to disobey the law. They act as a deterent for some. Rehab is for those who have seen the error of their ways and turn from them. Rehab only works for those who repent. All of these are found in the Bible, even safety. God wants us to live in peace and have peace. You can't have peace with the lawless running about causing trouble.

[RevDWW]

Having been in prison ministry for years, I have seen that inmates by and large are not really punished or rehabilitated. Hard labor would be a good form of punishment without giving them access to cable, weight rooms, etc. etc. etc. Many men come to prison and there buddies are there and they get to hang out, play cards, get three square meals a day and there is not much incentive not to return.

[Baron1710]

The law is not for the righteous. The punishments of the law are to instill fear into the hearts of those who may try to disobey the law. They act as a deterent for some. Rehab is for those who have seen the error of their ways and turn from them. Rehab only works for those who repent. All of these are found in the Bible, even safety. God wants us to live in peace and have peace. You can't have peace with the lawless running about causing trouble.

If it serves as a deterrent then it matters not if the individual is truly guilty but only that the public is of the opinion that the individual being punished is guilty. So deterrence has nothing to do with justice but serves only to provide an example of what will happen if you break the law. (This is C.S. Lewis' argument from God in the dock).

[rgcraig]

So you would say retribution? You earned it, so we are going to give you what you deserve?

The law is not for the righteous. The punishments of the law are to instill fear into the hearts of those who may try to disobey the law. They act as a deterent for some. Rehab is for those who have seen the error of their ways and turn from them. Rehab only works for those who repent. All of these are found in the Bible, even safety. God wants us to live in peace and have peace. You can't have peace with the lawless running about causing trouble.

Yes and thanks Mizpeh for putting it just like I feel.

[Baron1710]

Having been in prison ministry for years, I have seen that inmates by and large are not really punished or rehabilitated. Hard labor would be a good form of punishment without giving them access to cable, weight rooms, etc. etc. etc. Many men come to prison and there buddies are there and they get to hang out, play cards, get three square meals a day and there is not much incentive not to return.

I hear what you are saying but let me clarify. The question is why do we punish. Not how should we punish.

[rgcraig]

Having been in prison ministry for years, I have seen that inmates by and large are not really punished or rehabilitated. Hard labor would be a good form of punishment without giving them access to cable, weight rooms, etc. etc. etc. Many men come to prison and there buddies are there and they get to hang out, play cards, get three square meals a day and there is not much incentive not to return.

Very true - - some will actually do a crime to GET BACK in so they can live better than when they are out on the streets. Now that is sad.

[AmericanAngel]

Ya mean, cause they are temperalily off the streets?
If you are innocent and taken to jail, that's a crime. If you are a criminal and taken to jail, that's a luxury.

ok...do we punish criminals? *sigh* No. Because if we did, no one would want to go to jail. Very few are changed, probably by a visiting church outreach program.

We have a bigger problem....God is last on our list in the system. Where they allow it and welcome it, it's working.

I'm not sure I like my answer, but it's the only one I got right now.

[AmericanAngel]

Having been in prison ministry for years, I have seen that inmates by and large are not really punished or rehabilitated. Hard labor would be a good form of punishment without giving them access to cable, weight rooms, etc. etc. etc. Many men come to prison and there buddies are there and they get to hang out, play cards, get three square meals a day and there is not much incentive not to return.

Ditto

[Baron1710]

It seems most of you are saying the punishment is not equal to the crime, which would seem to say that you all are more in favor of retributive justice. An Eye for an Eye is retributive justice. It says you can extract no more punishment than earned. You don't get to take two teeth for the loss of one. The idea behind an eye for an eye was equal punishment, or as C. S. Lewis says your just desert.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Having been in prison ministry for years, I have seen that inmates by and large are not really punished or rehabilitated. Hard labor would be a good form of punishment without giving them access to cable, weight rooms, etc. etc. etc. Many men come to prison and there buddies are there and they get to hang out, play cards, get three square meals a day and there is not much incentive not to return.

Double DITTO
They don't have to worry about paying taxes, utility bills, nor where the next meal is coming from. We hard working slobs do all that for them!!

To answer your question, we supposedly punish them because it is a commandment of God. If we went back to the old testament and stoned the murderer immediately after he is found guilty there would be less murders. 2006 we had 17,034 murders in our country. Some of these was a repeat performance for some of these.

[rgcraig]

Baron,

I just believe prison is not making a difference in our society.

I read a story about the prisons in China and they are a 4 x 4 stall - - they sit crossed legged and get bread and water. They work hard labor instead of watching TV, playing baseball and working in the kitchen. When they get out they have NO DESIRE to return, so they ARE rehabilitated.

I'm not for cruelty, but I'm also not for robbery, murder, rape and whatever else they are in there for.

[Baron1710]

Double DITTO
They don't have to worry about paying taxes, utility bills, nor where the next meal is coming from. We hard working slobs do all that for them!!

To answer your question, we supposedly punish them because it is a commandment of God. If we went back to the old testament and stoned the murderer immediately after he is found guilty there would be less murders. 2006 we had 17,034 murders in our country.

You seem to be saying deterrence. I know we all have ideas about how we ought to punish and we can do that but, lets first answer the question why so we can better understand how.

[Cindy]

We punish criminals because we fear whats inside them.

[Baron1710]

We punish criminals because we fear whats inside them.

Care to elaborate on that?

[Cindy]

Care to elaborate on that?

I will try Baron.

I think most of us when we are little have stolen candy or something that doesn't belong to us. If our parents find out we get punished. More than a slap on the hand, a lot of parents make you go and look the person in the eye and apologize for stealing from them. I preferred getting smacked which was quicker and didn't require personal accountability.

As we become adults I think we try to punish criminals the quickest way, therefor most never have to take personal accountability.

[Baron1710]

I will try Baron.

I think most of us when we are little have stolen candy or something that doesn't belong to us. If our parents find out we get punished. More than a slap on the hand, a lot of parents make you go and look the person in the eye and apologize for stealing from them. I preferred getting smacked which was quicker and didn't require personal accountability.

As we become adults I think we try to punish criminals the quickest way, therefor most never have to take personal accountability.

So it sounds to me like you are say retribution? They deserve punishment therefore we punish?

[Cindy]

So it sounds to me like you are say retribution? They deserve punishment therefore we punish?

No, I think that by the time they are adults now, most dont have personal responsibility and accountability. So they don't understand and it's harder to learn.

And so we fear them.

[rgcraig]

No, I think that by the time they are adults now, most dont have personal responsibility and accountability. So they don't understand and it's harder to learn.

And so we fear them.

I fear them because some of them kill.

[Baron1710]

I fear them because some of them kill.

Ok so public safety. We punish to protect society.

[SDG]

Why do we punish as a society ... an age old question ...

Punishment is one of the pillars of justice. I believe it is to be meted out mercifully in a measure suited to the crime.

Sidney Smith once said, "The only true way to make the mass of mankind see the beauty of justice is by showing to them in pretty plain terms the consequences of injustice.

"With law comes the notion, according to Locke (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm), of either reward or punishment.

The debate between conservatives and liberals over retribution vs. rehabilitation is an old one ...

Also the reasons of deterrence, protection and removal are pertinent.

Biblically ... we see the ideas of an eye for eye ... tooth for a tooth .... as a pervasive guides. Yet also see how justice met grace at Calvary.

I don't think we'll ever definitively answer this ...

But ... of course what we value and devalue in our society also will guide why and how we punish.

[DividedThigh]

deterrane and retribution, safety is the goal and peace

[mizpeh]

If it serves as a deterrent then it matters not if the individual is truly guilty but only that the public is of the opinion that the individual being punished is guilty. So deterrence has nothing to do with justice but serves only to provide an example of what will happen if you break the law. (This is C.S. Lewis' argument from God in the dock).

It's the enforcement of the law which is the deterent. I'm not taking into account whether the individual is innocent or guilty.

[Baron1710]

Why do we punish as a society ... an age old question ...

Punishment is one of the pillars of justice. I believe it is to be meted out mercifully in a measure suited to the crime.

Sidney Smith once said, "The only true way to make the mass of mankind see the beauty of justice is by showing to them in pretty plain terms the consequences of injustice.

"With law comes the notion, according to Locke (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm), of either reward or punishment.

The debate between conservatives and liberals over retribution vs. rehabilitation is an old one ...

Also the reasons of deterrence, protection and removal.

Biblically ... we see the ideas of an eye for eye ... tooth for a tooth .... as a pervasive idea. Yet also see how justice met grace at Calvary.

I don't think we'll ever definitively answer this ...

But ... of course what we value and devalue in our society also will guide why and how we punish.

I think the idea that justice has a set limit on punishment is contrary to rehabilitation, and ultimatly to safety of society as well.

Assuming that prison is the appropriate punishment (That could be a whole other thread) and someone is sentenced to 2 years. Assuming it’s a fair punishment for the crime committed. But he has no desire to be rehabilitated, he plans on getting drunk and driving as soon as he gets out of jail.

Public safety and rehabilitation would say that we keep him locked up longer because he is not a menace to society and he is not rehabilitated. Retribution on the other hand says he has paid for his crime and regardless of what he does in the future we won't punish him because we failed to either rehabilitate him or protect society from him. So public safety and rehabilitation both are contrary to the limits of an eye for an eye.

What happens when saying homosexuality is a sin becomes a crime, would you want to be jailed until you were rehabilitated or until they were sure your hate speech wouldn’t harm society?

[Baron1710]

It's the enforcement of the law which is the deterent. I'm not taking into account whether the individual is innocent or guilty.

This is why C.S. Lewis argues that deterrence isn’t a proper reason to punish.

[tbpew]

This has been touched on somewhat in a few other posts but I was hoping we could have a discussion on this.

Why do we punish?

To promote safety?

Deterring crime?

Rehabilitation?

Retribution?

I know any answer may include more than one but which one is the most important in your view. What do you think is a Biblical view of punishment?
I submit that the overarching objective is to instill a confidence that EQUITY exists within a system of laws. Justice demands "retribution" for the ills that your actions 'involuntarily' imposed on a non-combative society.

That is why I am saddened that WORK camps have been considered 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The reality of any punitive loss of liberty should not just be a loss of access or discretionary time, but should inherently have a 'retribution' component.

If someone perpetrates an act that contradicts the known laws of a society, the punishment should include activities consistent with an equitable repayment of society's loss plus the cost to apprehend, prosecute and incarcerate(sp?). It would not likely be one-for-one dollar costing, but it would incentivize certain aspects of the process to seek the fastest agreeable resolution.

[rgcraig]

I submit that the overarching objective is to instill a confidence that EQUITY exists within a system of laws. Justice demands "retribution" for the ills that your actions 'involuntarily' imposed on a non-combative society.

That is why I am saddened that WORK camps have been considered 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The reality of any punitive loss of liberty should not just be a loss of access or discretionary time, but should inherently have a 'retribution' component.

If someone perpetrates an act that contradicts the known laws of a society, the punishment should include activities consistent with an equitable repayment of society's loss plus the cost to apprehend, prosecute and incarcerate(sp?). It would not likely be one-for-one dollar costing, but it would incentivize certain aspects of the process to seek the fastest agreeable resolution.
I agree!

[SDG]

Retribution:3: something given or exacted in recompense; especially : punishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment)

What I find interesting however ... is that when some pay their debt that we as a society have decided is just... it is still not enough in the minds of many.

And so I wonder if they want justice?

[Baron1710]

Retribution:3: something given or exacted in recompense; especially : punishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment)

What I find interesting however ... is that when some pay their debt that we as a society have decided is just... it is still not enough in minds of many.

And so I wonder if they want justice?

This is true. You made the statement on another thread recently, which got me thinking and reading about why we punish. We talk about repeat offenders and maybe they are repeat offenders because we haven't given them what they deserve, but on the other hand once they have endured the punishment that was proscribed why should we hold that over their heads from that point on.

[Cindy]

So do we have any conclusions of WHY we punish?

Got me to thinking about why I punished my children when they were young. I have not reached my own conclusions yet Baron, but thanks for this thread.

[Ferd]

I think there really are 2 questions here.

First, WHY do we punish NOW and secondly why SHOULD we punish.

Sadly I think our current system is simply the least costly way to meet the minimum expectation of society at large.

I dont think there is any serious thought to any of this. Mostly politicians play to the crowd and seek the most votes possible. So they pass laws to lock up criminals for longer and longer, until such time as the number of inmates and the cost to keep them in jail crosses a certain line. when that line is crossed, taxes would have to be raised, so politicians reduce terms or let out "non-violent offenders" out early (not considering the fact they became voilent in prison).


THAT is really what punishment in America is all about now. Nothing more, nothing less.

It used to be about punishment. You went to jail to suffer personally for what ever crime you committed. then we decided that rehabilitiation was the thing and so there was a battle between the two.

Well, the punishment side could not be defeated. The Rehab side could not gain control but neither side was willing to give. so the Rehabers decided to mitigate the punishment and now we have holding pins for humanity. We put them out of our thoughts but they are mingling together learning more crime and violence from each other, being indoctrinated with hate and latching on to what ever group will give them what every human needs, validation.

In the end we get NOTHING of value except that while the offender (read criminal) is locked up, we are safe FOR A TIME.

The criminal justice system should be called the criminal injustice system because it is unjust to SOCIETY.

[SDG]

I agree w/ some of the points you've made Ferd ... Your conservatism on this issues shines through ...

How would you reconcile some of what you've said with figures like these:

A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 (2006) showed that a record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail.


According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States than in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000.


The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1209-01.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are all ex-convicts repeat offenders? Why do so many repeat in your opinion? ... you said that prisons are just holding pins? How do we make sure they don't repeat while still being true to our Constitutional principles?

How do you think we should run our prisons that are filled to capacity?

[Ron]

My wife lived and worked in Singapore from 86-90 before coming to Canada & they have a low crime rate.
Even spitting on the sidewalk is against the law.
Women routinely walk home alone at 2:00 am because it is safe.
They have punishment & mete it out.

A little too much of a police state though if you ask me.

They hang drug traffickers, & remember Michael Fay?

He got canned for spray painting some cars.

6 strokes was the punishment & Bill Clinton intervened & he got it reduced to 3!

They don't fool around.

I think though they are a little too much Big Brother.

There are the two extremes, harsh in Singapore & soft in North America.

Surely there is a balance somewhere in the middle?

JMHO

[SDG]

My wife lived and worked in Singapore from 86-90 before coming to Canada & they have a low crime rate.
Even spitting on the sidewalk is against the law.
Women routinely walk home alone at 2:00 am because it is safe.
They have punishment & mete it out.

A little too much of a police state though if you ask me.

They hang drug traffickers, & remember Michael Fay?

He got canned for spray painting some cars.

6 strokes was the punishment & Bill Clinton intervened & he got it reduced to 3!

They don't fool around.

I think though they are a little too much Big Brother.

There are the two extremes, harsh in Singapore & soft in North America.

Surely there is a balance somewhere in the middle?

JMHO

Ya think? :crazywalls

[Ferd]

I agree w/ some of the points you've made Ferd ... Your conservatism on this issues shines through ...

How would you reconcile some of what you've said with figures like these:

A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 (2006) showed that a record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail.


According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States than in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000.


The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1209-01.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are all ex-convicts repeat offenders? Why do so many repeat in your opinion? ... you said that prisons are just holding pins? How do we make sure they don't repeat while still being true to our Constitutional principles?

How do you think we should run our prisons that are filled to capacity?

my conservitism shines thru? or are you reading something into what I said that I didnt say because you know who conseritive I am?

as for reconcilliation of your numbers.... I think they speak volumes. this is a direct result of the failure of ALL of our politicians and our society. I have to work for a bit, But I think you will be very supprised when I give you my take on what we ought to do to fix the problem...

[Cindy]

We are trying to discuss why we punish, not how fair or unfair the system is. Of course on AFF we hardly ever stay on topic because we have a great diverse forum. But I have come to realize a lot of times I punished my kids out of fear, that if I didn't they would not have any boundaries. And I have also come to the conclusion that you cannot do that with most adults, so why do we punish criminals?

[Praxeas]

This has been touched on somewhat in a few other posts but I was hoping we could have a discussion on this.

Why do we punish?

To promote safety?

Deterring crime?

Rehabilitation?

Retribution?

I know any answer may include more than one but which one is the most important in your view. What do you think is a Biblical view of punishment?
To maintain the status quo that there are consequences for breaking the law. For many this is a deterant. For others having done the time it changes their course when they get out of prison

[dizzyde]

To maintain the status quo that there are consequences for breaking the law. For many this is a deterant. For others having done the time it changes their course when they get out of prison

I think this is a good synopsis, as a parent I know that my primary goal in punishing my daughter as she was growing up was teaching her the consequences of her actions. You do something wrong and you have to pay. Cause and effect.

However, as adults, this concept really only works in the criminal justice system if these principles are already in effect in a persons life. If a criminal has not had this instilled in him in his formative years, the concept is meaningless, IMO.

Having worked in a federal prison, my observation is the criminal justice system as it stands is broken. It is ineffective, and for the most part irrelevant. The majority of the prison population resides there on a revolving door basis. Doing mountains of paperwork on these guys shows a lifetime of recidivism.

My biggest issue with the process however, is the "what if" factor. I am completely opposed to the death penalty, if for no other reason than the fact that we are very rarely 100% sure. Very rarely is a murderer caught in the act, and even a 1% chance that the person might be Innocent is enough for me to be opposed to it.

And then there are the situations that just scream of the ridiculous. Like one of my inmate office assistants who was 25 years old, serving a 50 year sentence with no possibility of parole on the 3 strikes law. All of his crimes were committed before he was 19 years old, all were drug related, and the felonies were for the use of weapons in the commission of the crime. No one was ever actually harmed, and he never actually had a weapon himself (in the third strike, he drove the get-away car).

I have no argument that he needed to be punished, but because of a ridiculous law, he will be in prison until he is almost 50 years old, and he never even hurt anyone. Dumb.

[chosenbyone]

And then there are the situations that just scream of the ridiculous. Like one of my inmate office assistants who was 25 years old, serving a 50 year sentence with no possibility of parole on the 3 strikes law. All of his crimes were committed before he was 19 years old, all were drug related, and the felonies were for the use of weapons in the commission of the crime. No one was ever actually harmed, and he never actually had a weapon himself (in the third strike, he drove the get-away car).

I have no argument that he needed to be punished, but because of a ridiculous law, he will be in prison until he is almost 50 years old, and he never even hurt anyone. Dumb.

The story of that kid getting life for drug charges showed how our judicial system has failed our society. That kid didn't need to spend 50 years of his life behind prison walls...what he needed was drug rehab. If it didn't work the first time, he should have kept being sent to different facilities until one worked for him. It would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money and gave the kid a real chance at having a normal, productive life!

Our prison system is not working! We keep on locking people up with no rehabilitation and no tools to actually make it in the world without having to resort to committing crimes again and again.

Offenders should be given counseling, job training, education and an effective program that would support them with the transition back to civilian life after their release from prison.

Why is our society so against prevention and so willing to bring down the hammer of "justice" when someone makes bad decisions? Many people are against social programs because they are afraid it will raise taxes; however, they are willing to pay even more taxes to incarcerate those same individuals when they resort to committing crimes. Crazy!

[dizzyde]

Why is our society so against prevention and so willing to bring down the hammer of "justice" when someone makes bad decisions? Many people are against social programs because they are afraid it will raise taxes; however, they are willing to pay even more taxes to incarcerate those same individuals when they resort to committing crimes. Crazy!

Yes, it is crazy! My daughter and I have actually been having this conversation fairly regularly trying to make sense out of it.

It is absolutely true that there are no easy answers, and there is no cut and dried program or method that is going to be the cure-all.

But, that being said, the status quo is not working, and it seems as if we (as a society) are just willing to go happily along ignoring that fact.

[Ferd]

The thing is, there are only 2 groups that get to have a say in what happens when a person is convicted of a crime.

The law and order types talk about longer sentences. The rehabilitation types talk about fixing criminals.

neither group are completely right and both miss a huge part of the solution.

Long terms leave these individuals in an extremely criminal and violent environment for a very long time. Those seeking rehabilitation end up minimizing the crime and trivialize the harm done to individuals and society at large and in the end reward criminal behavior.

I really think that punishment out to seek to address three areas of concern.

1. Compensation to society for the harm done. That would include working to both compensate the individuals that were harmed, and a greater compensation to society for the harm done to society at large.

2. Rehabilitation. but Not the kind we think of now. The criminal needs to be able to demonstrate they have gained skills necessary to be productive and not be allowed to re-enter the environment that turned them into criminals.

3. Punishment. Actual real punishment for a crime is absolutely necessary. I believe that this is both a deterrent to others as well as the individual and beyond that, punishment for a crime separate from compensation and rehabilitation is vital to insuring that our collective need for justice is met.


Each of these ought to be treated separately and happen concurrently. Right now we sentence a person to 15 years in prison and tell them they can get out in 5 if they behave, then we keep them on parole until they reach the end date of their sentence. Any slip up and they go back to jail. It is a very counter productive system that brings bad people together and allows them to network, then makes them angry at the system and they lash out and re-offend.


Criminals ought to work to pay for their crimes, then work to fix what they broke where possible. This would take the form of being paid for a job, then being forced to turn that money over to both the person harmed, and the government that has to assume responsibility for them (jail or what ever).

Criminals need to gain productive skills before they can be released.... and they ought to have to pay for it themselves. So if they don't have a high school diploma, they have to pay for a teacher and the test and get a GED. Then they need to learn some trade or something that they pay for before they can be released from the system. and prove (to what ever degree possible) that they wont re-offend.

Then there is punishment. That would have to be some form of time in some form of prison, but not like now. time is what we use now and it clearly doesn't work. there must be some additional factor that makes the punishment aspect real and effective. hard labor, cleaning streets etc.

Criminals should have virtually no time for idleness. And the form of prison where we simply house large numbers of people together should be re-thought. It doesnt work. It just creates gangs.


Once all these things are accomplished (some of which is time related, some is monetary related, and some is demonstrable related) then a person can be considered to have paid their debt to society.

[Cindy]

The thing is, there are only 2 groups that get to have a say in what happens when a person is convicted of a crime.

The law and order types talk about longer sentences. The rehabilitation types talk about fixing criminals.

neither group are completely right and both miss a huge part of the solution.

Long terms leave these individuals in an extremely criminal and violent environment for a very long time. Those seeking rehabilitation end up minimizing the crime and trivialize the harm done to individuals and society at large and in the end reward criminal behavior.

I really think that punishment out to seek to address three areas of concern.

1. Compensation to society for the harm done. That would include working to both compensate the individuals that were harmed, and a greater compensation to society for the harm done to society at large.

2. Rehabilitation. but Not the kind we think of now. The criminal needs to be able to demonstrate they have gained skills necessary to be productive and not be allowed to re-enter the environment that turned them into criminals.

3. Punishment. Actual real punishment for a crime is absolutely necessary. I believe that this is both a deterrent to others as well as the individual and beyond that, punishment for a crime separate from compensation and rehabilitation is vital to insuring that our collective need for justice is met.


Each of these ought to be treated separately and happen concurrently. Right now we sentence a person to 15 years in prison and tell them they can get out in 5 if they behave, then we keep them on parole until they reach the end date of their sentence. Any slip up and they go back to jail. It is a very counter productive system that brings bad people together and allows them to network, then makes them angry at the system and they lash out and re-offend.


Criminals ought to work to pay for their crimes, then work to fix what they broke where possible. This would take the form of being paid for a job, then being forced to turn that money over to both the person harmed, and the government that has to assume responsibility for them (jail or what ever).

Criminals need to gain productive skills before they can be released.... and they ought to have to pay for it themselves. So if they don't have a high school diploma, they have to pay for a teacher and the test and get a GED. Then they need to learn some trade or something that they pay for before they can be released from the system. and prove (to what ever degree possible) that they wont re-offend.

Then there is punishment. That would have to be some form of time in some form of prison, but not like now. time is what we use now and it clearly doesn't work. there must be some additional factor that makes the punishment aspect real and effective. hard labor, cleaning streets etc.

Criminals should have virtually no time for idleness. And the form of prison where we simply house large numbers of people together should be re-thought. It doesnt work. It just creates gangs.


Once all these things are accomplished (some of which is time related, some is monetary related, and some is demonstrable related) then a person can be considered to have paid their debt to society.

I am impressed Ferd. But our present system would have a hard time with this being implemented. We need reform of the system not just prisons.

[dizzyde]

The law and order types talk about longer sentences. The rehabilitation types talk about fixing criminals.

neither group are completely right and both miss a huge part of the solution.



Good thoughts Ferd.

[Ferd]

I am impressed Ferd. But our present system would have a hard time with this being implemented. We need reform of the system not just prisons.

we need to scrap the system completely. even the concept of prisons needs to be scraped and something vastly different needs to be created.

[Ferd]

Good thoughts Ferd.

because politicians are in charge, it will never happen. we will simply continue to live with a system that punishes people with maximum public splash and minimum taxation. and our prison will continue to take non-violent first timers and make them extra violent lifers.

[SDG]

Ferd you have presented a fairly moderate view on this issue .. you believe both retribution and rehabilitation are necessary ... I have to agree.

Implementation might be where we differ ... barely ...

In terms of the punishment fitting the crime ... do you agree w/ the Supreme Court decision not to execute child rapists ... why or why not?

[Ferd]

Ferd you have presented a fairly moderate view on this issue .. you believe both retribution and rehabilitation are necessary ... I have to agree.

Implementation might be where we different ... barely ...

In terms of the punishment fitting the crime ... do you agree w/ the Supreme Court decision not to execute child rapists ... why or why not?

That is a very interesting question. I know for sure that the supreme court found this case warrented their review. On that point I totally disagree.
IMHO, the court over stepped. Not because I agree with Louisiana on the point, but because i dont believe there is a point of constitutional law that extends here.

On the law itself, there are certainly a lot of things to consider. child rape is one of the hightes for residivism. It distroys the childs life, for life. Some call it living death.

On the other hand, blood is required for blood. So I am not sure you can really do that? I dont know.

there are some points of criminal behavior that ought to be treated vastly different. the extremely violent. people convicted of first degree murder and rapists (of all kinds)

I wonder with some if it simply isnt best to completely remove them from society in general permanantly?

[Baron1710]

Ferd you have presented a fairly moderate view on this issue .. you believe both retribution and rehabilitation are necessary ... I have to agree.

Implementation might be where we differ ... barely ...

In terms of the punishment fitting the crime ... do you agree w/ the Supreme Court decision not to execute child rapists ... why or why not?

We might argue if it is an appropriate punishment. But was the Supreme Court wrong? Yes. They found the statute unconstitutional based on an "evolving standard" of cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution should be read for what it says not how it has "evolved."

The Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child;

Do you believe this to be true? The dissenters certainly didn’t and yet this was the bases of reinterpreting the 8th Amendment. You talk a lot about due process but that applies to more than just giving rights to criminals. The Court overstepped its bounds again.

[SDG]

That is a very interesting question. I know for sure that the supreme court found this case warrented their review. On that point I totally disagree.
IMHO, the court over stepped. Not because I agree with Louisiana on the point, but because i dont believe there is a point of constitutional law that extends here.

On the law itself, there are certainly a lot of things to consider. child rape is one of the hightes for residivism. It distroys the childs life, for life. Some call it living death.

On the other hand, blood is required for blood. So I am not sure you can really do that? I dont know.

there are some points of criminal behavior that ought to be treated vastly different. the extremely violent. people convicted of first degree murder and rapists (of all kinds)

I wonder with some if it simply isnt best to completely remove them from society in general permanantly?

This would be a states rights issue for you then ... I can see this angle

The other day I was accused as not being a conservative because I believe that the punishment should meet the crime ...

In this case as you said blood for blood ...

I am for capital punishment ... and I believe that if a violent sexual offense accompanies a murder that the state should seek the death penalty ... I would assist if they needed my help.

However to say that all child rapists don't deserve to live ... and therefore be executed as one fellow conservative poster state here a few days ago ... flies in the face of what us death penalty proponents have been arguing for years ... this is an issue of just retribution.

And of course ... I need to vote for McCain to fix this ....

This public outcry to totally dehumanize all sexual offenders by not allowing them to participate in voluntary church activities (see Georgia) and even execute all child rapist for this heinous and violent act ... has me somewhat perturbed, Ferd.

Something is awry here .. and I'm trying to put my finger on it ...

This is not a conservative or liberal issue ...

In our modern republic we have not executed people for this before... but there is this wave of blood thirst that I believe is way too extreme for me.

[Baron1710]

In our modern republic we have not executed people for this before... but there is this wave of blood thirst that I believe is way too extreme for me.

Daniel, are you sure about this statement?

[SDG]

Daniel, are you sure about this statement?We (not me) strung up folks in the middle of night for dating or kissing a white woman and called it rape? .... maybe I'm wrong.

I sure hope we've evolved.

[Baron1710]

We (not me) strung up folks in the middle of night for dating or kissing a white woman and called it rape? .... maybe I'm wrong.

I sure hope we've evolved.


You must not have read the decision because it makes specific reference to a child rapist being executed in 1964. Executed not strung up.

[SDG]

You must not have read the decision because it makes specific reference to a child rapist being executed in 1964. Executed not strung up.

One execution over 40 years ago ??? C'mon Baron... as a general rule we have accepted as a society and in each our states this alone is not a capital offense ...

If you can prove to me otherwise ... that this has been common place than the Court is not far off in saying we have evolved ... common sense will tell you that

[SDG]

I am for capital punishment in the case of murder and treason ... of course circumstances come into play ....

Surely I'm a liberal

[Ferd]

This would be a states rights issue for you then ... I can see this angle

The other day I was accused as not being a conservative because I believe that the punishment should meet the crime ...

In this case as you said blood for blood ...

I am for capital punishment ... and I believe that if a violent sexual offense accompanies a murder that the state should seek the death penalty ... I would assist if they needed my help.

However to say that all child rapists don't deserve to live ... and therefore be executed as one fellow conservative poster state here a few days ago ... flies in the face of what us death penalty proponents have been arguing for years ... this is an issue of just retribution.

And of course ... I need to vote for McCain to fix this ....

This public outcry to totally dehumanize all sexual offenders by not allowing them to participate in voluntary church activities (see Georgia) and even execute all child rapist for this heinous and violent act ... has me somewhat perturbed, Ferd.

Something is awry here .. and I'm trying to put my finger on it ...

This is not a conservative or liberal issue ...

In our modern republic we have not executed people for this before... but there is this wave of blood thirst that I believe is way too extreme for me.

Dan, I think this kind of thing is a reaction to a sense of helplessness/frustration with the current system. Politicans are all too willing to tap into those feelings and capitalize on it by offering a popular (if viseral and extreme) solution. Kill the guy! everyone agrees. but why?

because we know we dont have a system that deals effectivly with criminals on any level, much less these deviant sexual predators. So out of frustration we drill down to the least common denominator. Kill that guy.

When in fact, what should govern punisment is, what was the cost to society? what are the future ramifications of this person being free?

It all fits into the same puzzle. Crime is dealt with in this country based on the most recient thing people see on the news. if a baby is raped.... and it is reported on, we want to deal with it. if it isnt on the nightly news every night for a week, we dont care. that is sick.

the entire system is broken. until we fix the entire system....which includes cleaning up entire neighborhoods, and demanding acountablility from parents and teenagers to complete school, we will continue down a path where far too many in this country are locked up and there is far too much violent crime.

[Baron1710]

One execution over 40 years ago ??? C'mon Baron... as a general rule we have accepted as a society and in each our states this alone is not a capital offense ...

If you can prove to me otherwise than the Court is not far off in saying we have evolved ... common sense will tell you that

Relax I was bating you...

Majority opinion p. 16
In 1925, 18 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government had statutes that authorized the death penalty for the rape of a child or an adult. See Coker, supra, at 593 (plurality opinion). Between 1930 and 1964, 455 people were executed for those crimes.

Dissent on page 54
but the Court fails to mention that litigation regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty brought executions to a halt across the board in the late 1960’s. In 1965 and 1966, there were a total of eight executions for all offenses, and from 1968 until 1977, the year when Coker was decided, there were no executions for any crimes.

[SDG]

You must not have read the decision because it makes specific reference to a child rapist being executed in 1964. Executed not strung up.

THE LAST execution over 40 years ago ??? C'mon Baron... as a general rule we have accepted as a society ,and in each our states , that this alone is not a capital offense ...

If you can prove to me otherwise than the Court is not far off in saying we have evolved ... common sense will tell you that

[Ferd]

One execution over 40 years ago ??? C'mon Baron... as a general rule we have accepted as a society and in each our states this alone is not a capital offense ...

If you can prove to me otherwise ... that this has been common place than the Court is not far off in saying we have evolved ... common sense will tell you that

IMHO, it isnt the SCOTUS' job to tell us when we have evolved. Its their job to insure that the laws of the land comply with the constitution... as it was written or has it is amended.


It is the job of the AMERICAN PUBLIC working with the system in place to provide Amendments to the constitution when we colletively decide we have evolved. (see the 15th, 19th and 24th amendments.)

[Ferd]

Since we have gone down the constitutional track, I think siting the laws of other nations in either an opinion or a minority dissent opinion should be ground for impeachement.

[SDG]

Relax I was bating you...

Majority opinion p. 16
In 1925, 18 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government had statutes that authorized the death penalty for the rape of a child or an adult. See Coker, supra, at 593 (plurality opinion). Between 1930 and 1964, 455 people were executed for those crimes.

Dissent on page 54
but the Court fails to mention that litigation regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty brought executions to a halt across the board in the late 1960’s. In 1965 and 1966, there were a total of eight executions for all offenses, and from 1968 until 1977, the year when Coker was decided, there were no executions for any crimes.

This is what's missing in this montage of facts .... How many of these 18 states changed/reversed their laws authorizing the death penalty for rape since 1925 ....???

That would be an interesting analysis and pertinent.

Yes there was a brief hiatus of executions across the board... but it's still a 30 year window in which as a society we have not practiced this ....

So once again ... my claim that this has been an exception in modern society rather than the rule still stands ...


As conservatives we need to be consistent ... one of the major arguments we made to bring this back was a life for a life and now I here some of my compadres "adding" to the list. Who's next debtors?

[Ferd]

This is what's missing in this presentation .... How many of these 18 states change their laws authorizing the death penalty since 1925 ....

Yes there was a brief hiatus of executions ... but it's still a 30 year window in which as a society we have not practiced this ....

So once again ... my claim that this has been an exception rather than the rule still stands ...


As conservatives we need to be consistent ... one of the major arguments we made to bring this back was a life for a life and now I here some of my compadres "adding" to the list.

I think your question is a bit off. All law was tossed by the SCOTUS in the 1960s only after the Death Penalty was reinstituted did new laws in the states allow any death penalty. Only now has 1 state created such a law.

IMHO it is still part of a failed system and therefore part of a general failure by our society to deal with crime and the contributors to crime.

[Baron1710]

This is what's missing in this montage of facts .... How many of these 18 states changed/reversed their laws authorizing the death penalty for rape since 1925 ....???

That would be an interesting analysis and pertinent.

Yes there was a brief hiatus of executions ... but it's still a 30 year window in which as a society we have not practiced this ....

So once again ... my claim that this has been an exception in modern society rather than the rule still stands ...


As conservatives we need to be consistent ... one of the major arguments we made to bring this back was a life for a life and now I here some of my compadres "adding" to the list.

Wrong again. Its not 30 years, this law was passed in 1995 cutting another 13 years from your time frame and living us with less than 20 years from the time the SC allowed executions in States again until the passage of the law. And you have strayed from the argument, the SC misconstrued the facts to arrive at this decision.

[SDG]

I think your question is a bit off. All law was tossed by the SCOTUS in the 1960s only after the Death Penalty was reinstituted did new laws in the states allow any death penalty. Only now has 1 state created such a law.

IMHO it is still part of a failed system and therefore part of a general failure by our society to deal with crime and the contributors to crime.

So we must look at the states that did institute this after the hiatus ...??

But still looking at which states were eliminating this from their books is still pertinent ... to show "evolving" towards not implementing this practice.

How many states had this as law ... right when the hiatus happened is pertinent ...

[Ferd]

So we must look at the states that did institute this after the hiatus ...??

But still looking at which states were eliminating this from their books is still pertinent ... to show "evolving" towards not implementing this practice.

ahhh, but it is expressly NOT the job of the court to detrmine our evolution.

[SDG]

ahhh, but it is expressly NOT the job of the court to detrmine our evolution.

Entirely another issue ... right now ... I'd have to read the entire decision to see if this was the only reason given ...

I'm not one for montage of facts.

[SDG]

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?408+238): Death penalty under current statutes is "abitrary and capricious" and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Oral arguments (http://oyez.at.nwu.edu/cases/72-861/) to the case are available online (using RealAudio) from Oyez Oyez Oyez.

Four year hiatus:



Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?428+153): Reinstates the death penalty under a model of guided discretion. See also Jurek v. Texas 428 U.S. 262 (1976) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?428+262) and Proffitt v. Florida 428 U.S. 242 (1976) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?428+242).
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?428+280): Mandatory death penalty laws declared unconstitutional. See also Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?428+325).
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/sup-choice.cgi?433+584): Death penalty for the rape of adult women declared unconstitutional because the sentence was disproportionate to the crime. Twenty prisoners from around the country were removed from death row as a consequence of this decision.

Was there just as much outrage for the Coker decision .... Were conservatives screaming all RAPISTS need to die???

My gut tells me this recent decision to execute child rapists is about a modern wave to capitalize on people's emotions.

It has been 30 years since it's return.

[Ferd]

Entirely another issue ... right now ... I'd have to read the entire decision to see if this was the only reason given ...

I'm not one for montage of facts.

thats a good Idea. I think I ought to read it too....


I do know the court relied on "cruel and unusual punishment" and I am not willing to give the court that much leeway.

at some point the death penalty is Cruel and Unusual. I mean you cant execute people who drive 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone.

I just dont know if this meets that standard.


personally I think the entire system is both cruel and unusual. all of it. both to the criminal and to society at large.

we dont fix bad people we just stack them like cordwood until we get tired of it then we let them back out in the general population to continue thier bad behavior. there is nothing about our system that seems to deal with the impact of crime, nor prevent future crime.

[Baron1710]

Synopsis for you from the court, its two reasons.

Held: The Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the deathpenalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death. Pp. 8–36.
1. The Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency thatmark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101. The standard for extreme cruelty “itself remains the same,
but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382. Under the precept of justice that punishment is to be graduated and proportioned to the crime, informed by evolving standards, capital punishment must “be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the mostserious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the mostdeserving of execution.’

2. A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including
the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide
crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape. Pp. 11–23.

[SDG]

Baron, when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in 1972... how many states had laws authorizing death for rape on their books is a pertinent question for this discussion ... I believe.

[SDG]

Synopsis for you from the court, its two reasons.

Held: The Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the deathpenalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death. Pp. 8–36.
1. The Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency thatmark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101. The standard for extreme cruelty “itself remains the same,
but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382. Under the precept of justice that punishment is to be graduated and proportioned to the crime, informed by evolving standards, capital punishment must “be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the mostserious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the mostdeserving of execution.’

2. A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including
the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide
crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape. Pp. 11–23.

Thank you ... I believe their first reason suffices.

[deltaguitar]

I think we need to remember the word "and" in Cruel and Unusual punishment. There is no way that the death penalty of today can be considered cruel but they might view is as unusual in cases of rape because it, the punishment, is unusual.

I haven't read this whole thread but I really don't see the point in the death penalty anyway. Very few people are ever executed so it can't be a deterrent to commit crime.

From what I am hearing from Bill O'Reilly there are some judges out there that don't believe in punishing these guys. You will have a guy who molest children and doesn't even serve time in some places.

[Baron1710]

Baron, when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in 1972... how many states had laws for rape on their books is a pertinent question for this discussion ... I believe.

I don't have that information at my fingertips, But let's not forget there was a federal law that they could have been charged under in any state.

[Baron1710]

Thank you ... I believe there first reason suffices.

Well Daniel five Justices agree with you and only four with me so that settles it. But the 5 that agree with you are still wrong in how they misused the Constitution to overturn a law they didn't like.

[SDG]

Well Daniel five Justices agree with you and only four with me so that settles it. But the 5 that agree with you are still wrong in how they misused the Constitution to overturn a law they didn't like.

Then who will decide what cruel and unusual punishment means ... as part of their job to see if a law is Constitutional or not ....isn't this their job to try to also interpret what phrases like "cruel and unusual" means?

I think a guiding principle in this capital punishment debate is


are we seeking justice ... a life for a life ....

or

in the case of non-homicidal reasons ...

VENGEANCE.

[Baron1710]

Then who will decide what cruel and unusual punishment means ... as part of their job to see if a law is Constitutional or not ....isn't this their job to try to also interpret what phrases like "cruel and unusual" means?

I think a guiding principle in this capital punishment debate is


are we seeking justice ... a life for a life ....

or

in the case of non-homicidal reasons ...

VENGEANCE.

The guiding principle should be the Constitution not the every evolving nonsense. The Court came to its decision not on what the Constitution said but on what they wanted it to say.

But let me say this, if a grown man raped my 10 year old, he wouldn’t have to worry about what state he was in.

[SDG]

The guiding principle should be the Constitution not the every evolving nonsense. The Court came to its decision not on what the Constitution said but on what they wanted it to say.

But let me say this, if a grown man raped my 10 year old, he wouldn’t have to worry about what state he was in.

Me and you too ... I'd repent later.

[Ferd]

Well Daniel five Justices agree with you and only four with me so that settles it. But the 5 that agree with you are still wrong in how they misused the Constitution to overturn a law they didn't like.

... not to belabor the point... buuut....


there isnt a day in the year when I want my name associated with 4 of the 5 justices that agree with Dan... 3 of those 5 are less American than the average illegal alien living among us....


well, thats a bit much but you get what I mean..

[Ferd]

Then who will decide what cruel and unusual punishment means ... as part of their job to see if a law is Constitutional or not ....isn't this their job to try to also interpret what phrases like "cruel and unusual" means?

I think a guiding principle in this capital punishment debate is


are we seeking justice ... a life for a life ....

or

in the case of non-homicidal reasons ...

VENGEANCE.

m not so sure that Vengeance isnt a valid recourse to seek. in certain cases...

[Ferd]

The guiding principle should be the Constitution not the every evolving nonsense. The Court came to its decision not on what the Constitution said but on what they wanted it to say.

But let me say this, if a grown man raped my 10 year old, he wouldn’t have to worry about what state he was in.

Me and you too ... I'd repent later.

amen.

[SDG]

... not to belabor the point... buuut....


there isnt a day in the year when I want my name associated with 4 of the 5 justices that agree with Dan... 3 of those 5 are less American than the average illegal alien living among us....


well, thats a bit much but you get what I mean..

And yet 2 of the one's voting consistently "liberal" were appointed by George Herbert ...

I'm all for overturning Roe v. Wade ... and making sure gay marriage is not constitutionalized ....

but for the most part I want my Court moderate ...

Just right in the middle.

Balance in the judiciary is important, I think.

I don't know if a poll-driven McCain would help tilt the court anyway.

[SDG]

m not so sure that Vengeance isnt a valid recourse to seek. in certain cases...

Of course ... I mean when codifying punishment.

[Ferd]

Of course ... I mean when codifying punishment.

I mean vengence is proper when codifying punishment in certain cases.


and GHWB appointed 1 idiot lib. Justice Kennedy was appointed by Uncle Ronnie and he is truely a moderate. neither an idiot lib nor a conservitive.


I dont want my justices to be liberal nor concervitive except to say it has become vogue for conservitives to want strict constructionists while liberals want activists who see the constitution as "living and breathing"

I want all justices to see their job as constructionist. that is to say, they should stick to insuring that law is constitutional based on what the constitution says. leave legislation to the legislators.

[SDG]

I mean vengence is proper when codifying punishment in certain cases.


and GHWB appointed 1 idiot lib. Justice Kennedy was appointed by Uncle Ronnie and he is truely a moderate. neither an idiot lib nor a conservitive.


I dont want my justices to be liberal nor concervitive except to say it has become vogue for conservitives to want strict constructionists while liberals want activists who see the constitution as "living and breathing"

I want all justices to see their job as constructionist. that is to say, they should stick to insuring that law is constitutional based on what the constitution says. leave legislation to the legislators.

You forget Souter ... appointed by GHWB... who ...

In the past few years in 5-4 cases, almost if not always sides with the more liberal judges.

Ford who appointed Stevens.

that's 3 judges ( a third) appointed by "conservative" Presidents .... that are not what they were cracked up to be for some ...

That's why I can't just vote for McCain or Obama ... on this notion that the future of our nation is at "stake" because of the judicial appointments.... or apocalypse now.

[Ferd]

You forget Souter ... appointed by GHWB... who ...

In the past few years in 5-4 cases, almost if not always sides with the more liberal judges.

Ford who appointed Stevens.

that's 3 judges ( a third) appointed by "conservative" Presidents .... that are not what they were cracked up to be for some ...

That's why I can't just vote for McCain or Obama ... on this notion that the future of our nation is at "stake" because of the judicial appointments.... or apocalypse now.


no sir I didnt forget souter. you said 2 voting consistantly liberal appionted by Herbert.

Hebert appointed souter (the big mistake) and thomas (the great success)

Uncle Ronnie appointed Kennedy who has been the swing vote. and yes ford appointed Stevens.

BUT FORDs appointment was BEFORE the republicans became the party of the strict constructionist. I dont think that Ford in that time considered Kennedy to be a dissapointment.


I just want a court that sticks to the actual Constitution and doesnt legislate.