I have often been fascinated by last meals people have chosen before their death: http://www.famouslastmeals.com/


I don't even know why.

After reading this post, it's incredible to me that you even think you know enough about this subject to discuss it intelligently. To answer the simplest question first, we impose additional safeguards on the death penalty because death is different; it is final in a way that other sentences are not, and the power of the state to kill its citizens is the ultimate expression of state authority and, if it is to be used at all, should be used only in situations where the state's moral authority is at its greatest.

California's issues with the administration of the death penalty have more to do with California than with the death penalty, which is probably the conclusion you should have drawn in the first place once you discovered what an extreme outlier that state is. You should also have noticed that most or all of California's woes relate to funding, a theme that plays out in virtually every aspect of California politics. California does not have a bureaucracy problem, it has a money problem.

I surely hope you don't mean to suggest that we were better off when the national average wait between conviction and execution was one year than we are now that it's ten. We know that an innocent person has been executed in the United States at least as recently as 2004. Numerous other innocent death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence in recent years. I would be very surprised if any of those exonerations occurred within a year of sentencing. A majority probably did not occur within five years. Richard Dieter's 1997 study puts the average time between conviction and release of an exonerated death row inmate at roughly seven years. We'll never know for sure, but I think we can fairly extrapolate that an unconscionably large number of innocent people were put to death as a result of the "more efficient" execution administration of the past.

And certainly no one who has the slightest idea of what goes on in a postconviction capital case would characterize it as "nitpick(ing) every little detail of the trial" over the course of "multiple lengthy appeals." Most or all states allow capital defendants one, and only one, direct appeal on the trial record. Once that's done, they may attack the conviction on the basis of matters outside the trial record, such as ineffective counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and the like through state and federal habeas corpus claims. Since the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, inmates must exhaust all available state remedies before they can file in federal court. If there's a truly time- and money-wasting aspect of the process, that's it -- but if you knew anything about this process, you wouldn't be surprised to learn that the exhaustion requirement favors the state, placing an additional hurdle in the path of those who've been given a death sentence, even though everyone knows the state will protect its own verdicts. After all that, the inmate can go to federal court, where (thanks again to AEDPA) they'd better have every possible argument ready the first time (including the ones they haven't thought of yet because their investigators haven't turned up the evidence that they'd need to make the argument), because they'll almost certainly never get another shot. Oh, and to succeed, they'll have to prove not only that the state court was wrong, but that it was unreasonable, either in its application of the law or its determination of the facts. Too legal; didn't read: The system is designed to make successfully attacking a capital conviction as difficult and burdensome as possible, in the hope that the convicted person will either miss a deadline or give up and go away.

Oh, and you're using "bureaucratically" wrong. Knock it off.

This thread was better when it was about how sarn is dumb for trusting facebook, instead of how sarn is dumb for supporting the death penalty. I guess it's still less depressing than when the thread was about the fifth or sixth major North American mass shooting of the year.

props for the effortposting though, macfarlane.

I don't really think Sarn is especially dumb for supporting the death penalty, though I certainly think he's wrong. It's more that I think he's dumb for wanting more wrongfully convicted people to get the death penalty.



Lawrence Brewer ruined this for the entirety of the Livingston, TX Alan B. Polunsky Unit by ordering


and then eating none of it.

guess you could say...he lost his appetite

YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I would eat every last bite and finish it off with an ex-lax sundae. I'd make those ****ers hose that room out.

Actually, I think ordering all that food and then not touching it is kind of the ultimate "**** you!" to the sytem. "Yeah, you can execute me, but I have the power to order all this ****, and then not eat any of it - and you've got no power over me there."

It's a pretty stupid "last favor" if you ask me, and he called them out on it.

EDIT: Drugs (lol) or even just a cigarette would make more sense - take away stress or awareness, not add a bunch of calories to a corpse that won't need them.

I'll take LD50 of PCP, to be administered directly to my heart 30 seconds before they come to take me away.

10 gallons of every type of human blood product, mixed together and boiled gently for a minute.

The murder spree continues. :smug:

...with a nice Chianti.

i'm going to suggest we put all the last meal discussion in it's own thread

Hey Michael MacFarlane, show me where I said I was in favor of the death penalty?

Since everything I was saying went waay over your head (as evidenced by your long ass post that had nothing to do with what I was saying), I'll requote myself.



That's it. I'm against an overly complicated judicial system that doesn't trust itself to do its job, but at the same time trusts itself enough to take someone's life away (whether it be through death or a life sentence is irrelevant).

YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT J.D. DUMPFACE, MY OPINIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM ARE TOO NUANCED FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND THEM.

You aren't even one hundred millionth as smart as you think you are. Not one hundred billionth. For all the misfiring ****ing failure synapses in that tangled mess you call a brain, there isn't even one nanoangstrom of one axon that has a single ****ing clue what it's talking about. The fact that you, someone who hasn't accomplished a single significant intellectual feat in his entire miserable life would even consider talking down to an expert about his chosen profession is so far beyond disgraceful and egotistical that it can only be favorably described as a symptom of the gross, untreated mental illness that festers in your broken psyche.

You are ****ing disgusting.

Over the years Michael MacFarlane has given us thousands of dollars worth of his legal expertise for free, and you act like a complete ****wad. Go get a JD, then come back here and talk to us about how the legal system is like, just too complicated maaaan.

I'm more surprised nobody shot back.

It was a dark theater and they thought it was part of the show.

This to me was one of the worst aspects of this. The fact that this sort of thing is becoming, as Daft put it "frighteningly commonplace". It is ****ty to say, but there are a lot of people who while they recognize the tragedy of the loss of life, simply do not find this sort of thing shocking anymore.


Yeah this sort of ridiculous bravado is really BS i don't think anyone can accurately predict how they would react in this situation, of course we all would like to think we would sack up and rush the guy, taking him out. but for myself, i would honestly probably either freeze in my seat or duck behind it. not the response i would like to have, but probably true.

also while a ban on assault weapons would make them harder to get, if your going to be honest, it would NOT prevent people who really want them from getting them... That is to say, a ban would not keep bad people from getting and using them.

additionally i think i changed my mind on the death penalty. I don't particularly support it any more.

JD? Is that slang for hand job?

Psh no, it's the main character from Scrubs, duh

I thought the main char. was the janitor??

A ban on assault weapons, with serious consequences for violation, will stop most people from getting them. Only the "really bad" people will go after them at that point. Then we'll be in a situation where only the really bad people, the police, and the military have them. Allow the police and the military to do their jobs. If you are not satisfied with the way the police and the military do their jobs, write a letter to your congressman. Otherwise, shut the **** up. Owning an assault rifle isn't going to help.

If I was mistaken about that, I'll apologize.



My long ass-post was meant to correct a number of your misconceptions about the way the capital punishment system works, since your ideas about what ought to be done are obviously deeply rooted in those misconceptions, not to respond to any specific argument you were making.



You're not making any goddamned sense. The system trusts itself (eesh) to take someone's life away only because of the "overly complicated" safeguards imposed on death sentences. We don't need to treat every case like a capital case, because -- and I think this is pretty clear to both of us -- capital cases are expensive, and no other cases have the same sort of consequences.

First, no. While i can respect your opinion, i don't have to agree with it (incidentally i agree that owning an assault rifle does not 'help') and i don't have to shut up. Placing a ban on something is really only guaranteed to do one thing. It will create a black market for that item, and if one already exists it will probably make it bigger. It will probably also have the affect of keeping people who are not terribly interested in owning one from buying assault rifles, and yeah that will be most people. what it will almost certainly NOT do though is keep them out of the hand of people who really should NOT have them, but are determined to get them.

I'm not advocating using assault weapons for home protection, that's stupid. you would probably kill the 'intruder' your cat, your next door neighbor and yourself. Honestly my arguments in favor of assault weapons are pretty shallow. One is complete tinfoil: If **** ever hits the fan in a REALLY serious way, then i want a damn machine gun. The second is probably equally as ridiculous: they are incredibly fun to shoot! They just are. All i'm really saying is that you cannot fix what is wrong with PEOPLE by banning THINGS. can you curb how much damage they can do to others? Maybe. That's right, maybe.

as an aside, i will grant this. if you ban assault rifles, you WILL eliminate civilian shootings with legally owned assault rifles.

​

Originally posted by Jon`C:

That is a really nice post.

It's actually a completely idiotic post and is flat out wrong on most points.

Quote:

[/COLOR]

Quote:

[LEFT] So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. [/COLOR][/LEFT]
[/quote] [LEFT]
This is just...wrong. Plain wrong. I can't believe people even try to make this argument.

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the second part again.

Quote:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anybody who doesn't comprehend what this means either doesn't speak English or is trying really hard not to see something that they don't want to see.

If that's still not enough, don't take my word for it, as the supreme court has already ruled on the issue. It's moot and Alexander really makes himself look like an idiot. See DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago:
[/COLOR] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[/COLOR] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Read Heller and McDonald and you'll find out that constitutionally protected arms are defined by arms that are "in common use". The AR-15 is the most #1 most commonly sold rifle in the US. That makes his "opinion" that the AR-15 isn't protected right on par with my "opinion" that 1+1=3.


Actually no, they aren't. Weapons like the M-16 assault rifle and M4 carbine are military weapons. These select fire/fully automatic weapons are so highly regulated in this country and so ridiculously expensive that they are essentially banned for all but the rich.

The AR-15 like the one that you can walk out of any Wal Mart with is semi-auto and works basically just like any other autoloading rifle or pistol, it just so happens to be modeled after the military weapons making it scary and evil to people who don't know the difference. Any standard "non military" weapon as defined my Alexander would have been just as effective in carrying out this massacre.

And also, learn the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon. Here's crash course:

Assault rifle: Military weapon such as aforementioned M-16 with select fire capability.

Assault weapon: Political term created to scare those who don't know enough about weapons to know that the scary looking black rifle functions exactly the same as a friendly looking wood stock hunting rifle.

This whole assault weapon bull**** stems from 1 fact and that's cosmetic similarity and nobody who actually knows anything about guns takes the term seriously. [/COLOR][/LEFT]

And money is free speech.

Snore.

And blacks are equal.

How cute.

Isn't it? (Appeal to authority.)

Let me clarify my own position: I'm not at all opposed to firearm ownership. I'm also not opposed to open carry. Pretty much the only gun control law I support is a ban on concealed carry, which means I also support restrictions on the sale, transport, and use of pistols. I support these laws because, other than the serious edge cases of one-armed hunters, they have no legitimate use off of a firing range.

In particular, I don't understand or support the hate for military-style weapons and ammunition. You're actually a lot more likely to survive with all of your limbs than if you get shot by a hunter. That part of his rant is stupid.

The part about the constitution isn't.

Let's look at what the constitution actually says:



This is called entailment. You are wrong, it doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You can't slice and dice a statement without changing the meaning. Anybody who doesn't comprehend why either doesn't understand simple logic or is trying really hard to push an agenda past the unobservant reader.

There was a video posted a long time ago surrounding CA's cosmetic assault ban, that took the action from the scary, evil looking outlawed assault weapon and placed it in a standard completely legal wood stock (might've been an SKS, can't remember).

Yeah, you're right. Why should we try to learn from this whole thing? Let's just kill them suspects! Lets not try to understand it, in the hopes that we can better try to prevent such things again! If it happens, we jus kill dem sum *****es! Cuz we're AMERICA!

But really, I'm not taking his side, but at the same time, I'm not taking the polar opposite side. I'm also not saying it was a sudden change. If you read everything again, including my post, there is an implication that this change happened over a course of one, maybe two or more semesters. That's a lot of time for someone to think and stew on things. If a big enough negative stimuli is kept in someone's life long enough, there would be negative impacts upon that person. It's how you deal with it that matters.

Everybody is different, and everybody reacts differently to things in their life. Some people react in a positive matter; they take up hobbies, seak out others, or excersize, for example, while others react in a negative manner; some self-inflict, or use substances like alcohol, commit suicide, or lash out and harm others.

And no, actually, she called/was called AFTER it was put in the news that he was arrested.

Pot calling the kettle black much?

The constitution may be antiquated in enumerating the people's (non-blacks) right to "bear arms" so that they would not be oppressed by a king or what have you. How does that change the meaning of that last clause though? And how can you not have an agenda yourself if you choose to ignore so many court rulings?

Having said that, I would think that the right of "the people" to bear arms (of SOME kind, as envisioned in the 18th century) does not imply that there can't be a restriction on the production or sale of arms, or of course "bearing" them in dangerous or anti-social ways (analogous to how restrictions on yelling "fire" in a theater is not a violation of the 1st Amendment).

Also, I am reading on Wikipedia that it was assumed that Englishmen had the right to bear arms already, and that white colonists inherited all the rights of Englishmen. In addition, I doubt the right to own a gun was really questioned for good citizens since the obvious need to hunt but also fight the natives was clearly apparent. Wikipedia says that many, many state constitutions list the right to self-defense in their versions of the Second Amendment.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

It should be a bannable offense to reply to a thread when you obviously did not read or comprehend it.

<A> You are trying to advance an agenda.
<B> No, you are trying to advance an agenda.
<Peanut Gallery> lol barry ur such a tardo, pot kettle black, am I right?

Please tell me what I have failed to read/comprehend by criticizing your narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment.

(I have to go, but I'll be able to read it in half an hour.)

Dash_rendar's post. And then my post.

What narrow interpretation? You mean my basic literacy skills that grant me an understanding that the meaning of a text is diminished when it has been drastically redacted?

Wouldn't Dash_rendar's interpretation be more narrow than mine, since his understanding of the text is limited to only 14 words of it?

No, please, don't rush yourself.

Allow me to quote the seventh commandment: "Kill" - Exodus 20:13.

You stood behind Jason Alexander's interpretation of the constitution, part of which is an argument that is pretty popular with liberal Democrats today: namely, that a colonist's right to "bear" arms is only enumerated if he is a part of a "well regulated militia". You say this is a literal interpretation, but it is at best implied in the original English! My interpretation, which I am pretty certain does not demonstrate a lack of English comprehension skills, is that the right is to be protected, and though it is this right that enables a state militia, that does not change the fact that it is a fundamental right (or at least not one that the writers thought the federal government should abridge). Furthermore, as I wrote in my post, I have reason to believe that it was commonly acknowledged that the colonists had this right before the constitution was written.



You should know from basic set theory that the the scope of something can be reduced by introducing MORE words (negation). The first clause of the Second Amendment (stating the purpose of the enumerated right, namely to ensure the state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia) restricts the effects of the final clause (the actual enumeration of the right of the people (the colonists) to bear arms, at least according to this more nuanced and more restrictive "right to bear arms" that only applies to people in the militias that you and George Alexander seem to share.

Haha, did I write "George Alexander"? Freudian slip... prolly meant to write George Costanza.

No, I said that his post was really nice.

The original English certainly doesn't imply such a thing; that's called denying the antecedent. The fact that a well-regulated militia neither exists nor is needed simply proves that the authors of that clause would not believe the right to bear arms is necessary. That does not mean guns should be prohibited.

If I thought guns should be prohibited, I would say that guns should be prohibited. You are tearing down a strawman.

I find it difficult to imagine that you would understand basic set theory and yet fail to understand the material conditional.

Edit:

I'm also really not sure how this observation is supposed to support your perspective. Since I'm considering the full passages as written, even if it did reduce the scope of the right... wouldn't that simply be the meaning of the passage? In what universe is it "better" to ignore the parts of a text that inconvenience you?


Oh... right, the Bible Belt. My bad.

"Thou shalt [...] murder"

Yes, you did:



Anyway, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what you actually believe. You say you aren't against gun prohibition; fine. Is that just a personal belief, or an argument that the Second Amendment is still applicable to "the people" despite the fact that "the people" have no need to join (and usually don't) the "militia" (military)?

The reason I don't see my "denial of the antecedent" as a fallacy is that I see these first and second parts of the Second Amendment as logically independent as written in plain English, insofar as the right is enumerated in the second part, even if that second part is not independent of the motivation explicated in the first part. Do you believe that constitutional rights go away when the conditions that originally motivated them go away?

No, I didn't. There's a difference between agreeing with a person's understanding of a text and agreeing with a person's interpretation of a text.

Jason Alexander understands the text to say "a well-regulated militia is necessary, therefore the rights to own and bear arms shall not be infringed". I agree with him. This is also the reason I enjoyed his post, because he correctly recognizes that the entirety of the text is relevant in a time when most people are intensely and dangerously eager to simply ignore anything that is inconvenient to them.

Jason Alexander, however, interprets the text to mean "because a well-regulated militia is not necessary, the rights to own and bear arms shall be infringed". I disagree. This interpretation is denying the antecedent. With my understanding and interpretation of the text, the constitution simply provides no guidance w.r.t. the right to own and bear arms.

Sounds like a personal problem.

1.) You didn't deny the antecedent. You accused me of doing it, and you were (morally, logically, factually) wrong to do so.
2.) Denying the antecedent is always a logical fallacy.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, unless the constitution has the power to command reality so that a well-regulated militia is actually necessary.

Yes, unequivocally; rights, responsibilities, and limitations should absolutely be repealed when they are no longer relevant.

You feel the 21st amendment was a mistake, I guess?

Okay, Jon`C, if you, I, and Eugene Volokh are all in basic agreement, then why did you jump down Darth_Alran's^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hDash_rendar's throat about the relationship between the justification clause / operative clause (as Volokh puts it) while defending Alexander, who is "denying the antecedent", (as you put it)?