3 stooges writ large

[_MeDotOrg]

That unnatural way is to try to, temporarily, assume the opposing position and look at the evidence from that viewpoint.

No wonder you're frustrated. I don't think it's really possible to look at evidence from an opposing viewpoint any more than it is possible to be another person. I don't really think we need to listen to each other any more. Our differences are clear. I think we need separate countries and the freedom to practice our political beliefs about which system of government works best in the world. To me that would give people a real choice. I don't think voting really gives people a choice. The country is too big and too factionalized to franchise everyone. If human beings did evolve to live in groups, it was small groups, not giant nations like the USA.

Our country is divided. But there is no Mason-Dixon line neatly separating us geographically. We are over 300 million people, and we are becoming increasingly culturally diverse.

We used to at least read the same newspapers and listen to the same radio and watch the same television. With the internet, MP3 players and cable TV, we can all withdraw to our own cultural 'enclaves' and throw verbal stones at one another. Yes, there is more information in the information age, but what information we consume and how it is digested is not questioned.

In a populous, heterogeneous democracy it is virtually axiomatic that there will be large factions of different opinions. Your opinions are not always going to hold sway. It's a little like being a hitter in baseball: if you fail to hit 7 times out of 10, you're successful.

To put it another way, the more diverse and heterogeneous our country becomes, the less it will represent your (or my) feelings.

The reality is that Red Staters and Blue Staters can overlay like area codes.

For some reason I thought of the partition of India, when East and West Pakistan were born. Millions of of people were displaced because a democracy was unable to find a middle ground between two cultures. It's hard for me to imagine lines of refugees heading north in Hybrids and heading south in SUVs.

But democracy is certainly becoming more challenging. The one thing that discourages me most is when we can't see that the other side means well too.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm not sure Liberals have a corner on intellectualism, nor do they provide solutions that are both moral and economical to society at large.

That's the crux of the issue. Both Liberals and Conservatives are so mired in their ways and their demographics that neither can reasonably be expected to be realistic about solutions to problems that plague mankind.

I'll give you a simple example. The Death Penalty versus Life in Prison.

Liberals will often state that it's immoral to put a human being to death (let's leave abortion to the side for now, and assume the guilty is actually guilty). They would rather opt to pay for housing a criminal in an institution that is immoral in almost every sense of the word for LIFE. That's both cruel and incredibly expensive. in my opinion, it's more humane to put a man down rather than forcing him to languish in prison for life. IF we put the man down not only is justice served, but it saves him from a lifetime of cruelty in prison, and it saves the taxpayers the burden of paying for a criminal (in essence, the citizen is victimized twice by the criminal; the initial crime against society, and then society having to house him until death).

OR, we can simply reduced the amount of time a criminal pays for his crimes, use his time in jail to try and rehabilitate him, and then release him back into society. I'm not for that, and think that would be an unwise use of taxpayer money, and taking an unnecessary risk.

Could the two sides come to a consensus? No. They can't. And because of that our penal system is immorally large, and immorally expensive. And Liberals can't budge on the death penalty for the most part.

One example of many, many issues that can't be looked at logically, and fixed. And thus we have this schizoid culture.

- Doc

[_ajax18]

(in essence, the citizen is victimized twice by the criminal; the initial crime against society, and then society having to house him until death).

+100 Hasn't the Jodi Arias trial cost us nearly $2 million at this point? That's not counting the cost of keeping her and many others in prison for life.

And yet listening to John Osterlind last night, even some conservatives are against the death penalty. His point was that it was about vengeance and I agree that part is immoral. But the way it stands, it costs more money to provide life in prison than to execute them.

[_Quasimodo]

+100 Hasn't the Jodi Arias trial cost us nearly $2 million at this point? That's not counting the cost of keeping her and many others in prison for life.

What would your alternative solution be? Shouldn't we all get a fair trial before sentencing?

And yet listening to John Osterlind last night, even some conservatives are against the death penalty. His point was that it was about vengeance and I agree that part is immoral. But the way it stands, it costs more money to provide life in prison than to execute them.

Executing someone costs more than keeping them in prison for life (I'm not sure which is more humane). Life without parole is a death sentence. One just has to sit in a small cell for forty or fifty years before one dies. And, it's cheaper (if that is truly a concern).

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

There have been quite a few prisoners released lately because it turned out that they were wrongly convicted. Personally, I would prefer that potentially innocent people survive long enough to be released if the justice system screwed up. It's surprising how often that happens.

[_ajax18]

What would your alternative solution be? Shouldn't we all get a fair trial before sentencing?

Is there any expense/debt you wouldn't place upon the American people to achieve a "fair" trial. Do you have any limit?

Executing someone costs more than keeping them in prison for life

You're right. I got that sentence backwards. Doesn't that sound absurd that it costs more to kill someone than to provide life for them in prison?

[_Brackite]

+100 Hasn't the Jodi Arias trial cost us nearly $2 million at this point? That's not counting the cost of keeping her and many others in prison for life.

From ABC News:

Jodi Arias Defense in Murder Trial Has Cost Taxpayers $1.4 Million

...

The defense of Jodi Arias, on trial for allegedly murdering her ex-boyfriend, has cost Arizona taxpayers more than $1.4 million.

Arias, 32, is accused of murdering Travis Alexander in 2008 with 27 stab wounds, a slit throat and a bullet in the head. She could face the death penalty if convicted in her marathon murder trial.

Death penalty cases as a rule are more expensive than normal murder trials and the tab for her defense so far has exceeded $1.4 million, the state has revealed. Arias is represented by court-appointed attorneys at a rate of up to $250 per hour after she was unable to afford her own defense. The total does not include the cost of the state's prosecution.

The figure was released as the trial neared the end of its third month of testimony, which began Jan. 2.

The jury is currently hearing testimony by domestic violence expert Alyce LaViolette, who spent 44 hours interviewing Arias in jail. LaViolette was paid $250 an hour for that, and is now being paid $300 an hour for her expert testimony.

Arias and Alexander dated for about a year, but continued to sleep together after they broke up. Alexander was killed after a tryst in which the two took nude photos of each other.

The prosecution claims Arias killed Alexander out of jealousy, but Arias claims Alexander had become increasingly abusive and menacing and that she was forced to kill him in self defense when he became enraged because she dropped his camera.

LaViolette never met Alexander, but she read his emails, text messages and listened to recorded phone sex conversations he had with Arias.

Based on the evidence that she has collected, and the word of Arias, LaViolette said Arias was a battered woman. LaViolette cited one email that Alexander's close friends sent Arias early in the couple's relationship, which began in 2006.

"They advised her to move on from the relationship," LaViolette told the court. "That Mr. Alexander has been abusive to women."

Arias also claims she has been abused since childhood, a notion echoed by LaViolette in court this week.

"Jodi's mother didn't protect her from her father," LaViolette told the court.

LaViolette will continue her testimony next week and then face what is sure to be an intense cross examination by prosecutor Juan Martinez, who has suggested that Arias is making up stories of Alexander's alleged abuse.

Cost of Arias defense: $1.6M – and counting


Get caught up: Week 17 of Jodi Arias trial

[_Quasimodo]

What would your alternative solution be? Shouldn't we all get a fair trial before sentencing?

Is there any expense/debt you wouldn't place upon the American people to achieve a "fair" trial. Do you have any limit?

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the cost of judicial proceedings is very high.

I guess you could stand people up against a wall and shoot them if you suspected they had committed a crime to save a few bucks. I think that has been tried in a few other countries.

What's your solution?

[_ajax18]

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the cost of judicial proceedings is very high.

How so? It seems like a lot of money to me. Special interest groups have used the argument, it will only cost every American a little extra. But it adds up, especially as the number of special interest groups keeps adding up.

What's your solution?

I'd like to find a way to more closely connect those who pay the price with what they're being forced to pay for. It'd be nice if those paying the price had more oversight and say so about what they're buying.

I'd like people to start thinking about spending money in terms of the job they do and how many extra hours of that labor they're willing to put in to pay for the cause. Right now too many people think of tax dollars as something somebody else pays. It's not true. We all pay it!

[_Brackite]

Here is what I wrote back on November 2nd here:

Proposition 34 - Yes! Proposition 34 will repeal California's death penalty to replace it with life in Prison without the possibility of parole. While I believe in the death penalty in theory, the death penalty in California costs over 120 million a year, and it doesn't work there anymore. See e.g. http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21 ... costly-and

Proposition 34 ended up just failing within California by 48% to 52% during the last election in November.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

+100 Hasn't the Jodi Arias trial cost us nearly $2 million at this point? That's not counting the cost of keeping her and many others in prison for life.

What would your alternative solution be? Shouldn't we all get a fair trial before sentencing?

And yet listening to John Osterlind last night, even some conservatives are against the death penalty. His point was that it was about vengeance and I agree that part is immoral. But the way it stands, it costs more money to provide life in prison than to execute them.

Executing someone costs more than keeping them in prison for life (I'm not sure which is more humane). Life without parole is a death sentence. One just has to sit in a small cell for forty or fifty years before one dies. And, it's cheaper (if that is truly a concern).

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

There have been quite a few prisoners released lately because it turned out that they were wrongly convicted. Personally, I would prefer that potentially innocent people survive long enough to be released if the justice system screwed up. It's surprising how often that happens.

And that just proves the point. The appellate process used by anti-death penalty types to their end. They figure if they can make it painful and expensive enough for the State then eventually the State will opt for the "cheaper" alternative. They're hijacking the State and the treasury to further their political agenda.

And that's why we can't have nice things. Our money is wasted on ideology instead of building hospitals or roads.

- Doc