Conference back40::soapbox

    should fry in hell for this.

    
    I don't think they can use oil down there.

    wait till the trial. defence (i leanrt this new spelling last week)
    will plead its not her fault. was driven to it by something.

    
    being given a son this summer and made a father, I can honestly say
    that if Mr. Smith was any type of man, he would avenge both his son's
    death's reguardless of the trial outcome.  A death sentance could take
    years to execute.  
    
                      ...just my opinion.

    
    Doesn't matter if she gets the Death Sentence or not.  If she's guilty
    then, as Gene says, she'll fry in hell.

| should fry in hell for this.


	Fry? No way! It's shake & bake, and I heaaalped!

	Feed her to Dahmer..........

| <<< Note 37.7 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Class Clown & Box Jester...%^)" >>>


| Feed her to Dahmer..........


	wrong gender....

    ...that should be "*AAAH* heaalped!"
    
    D_former_amateur_phonologist
    

  Two hundred years ago the Found Fathers of the United States created a system
of Federal and State government with guarantees that the people would be
protected from wrongfull prosecution and abuse of power by the state.

  For nearly an equal amount of time, conservatives have fought against those
protections and this case is currently the flagship case being used to deprive
the people of those rights.

  This woman is presumed innocent until proven guilty before a jury of her
peers and no desire for vengeance is worth allowing our nation to be reduced to
a police state. 

  Susan Smith, allegedly murders her sons,
  George

    Deja vu again...

    Deja vu again...

Well, those who defend the Smith woman are already saying that it wasn't
all her fault, that there were factors at work that brought her to the
brink and made her unable to go on.

They cite, among other things, the abortion she had as a teenager.

/john

  How about the fact that she was raised in a conservative two parent
household?

  That would mess anyone up.

  George

| <<< Note 37.10 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

| Two hundred years ago the Found Fathers of the United States created a system
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				  |
			  	  |

	Can't we just insert Steve Leech here?

	

 > How about the fact that she was raised in a conservative two parent
 > household?
 >
 > That would mess anyone up.


 Hey, I resemble that remark!

    .13
    
    i think she's guilty as all getout, and i think she should fry in the
    chair or whatever it is they do in south carolina.
    
    but, as meowski says, she has the RIGHT to be presumed innocent under
    the law until she is proven guilty.
    
    we have a choice, people.  we can have a nation of kangaroo courts and
    lynch mobs, or we can have a nation under the constitution.  what would
    YOU rather have?

    I'm sorry; I have a hard time presuming someone innocent when they've
    already confessed to the d*mn crime!!  I don't give a rat's patooti
    WHY she did it; I just hope justice is sure and swift!!
    
    

    .18
    
    nobody asks YOU to presume she's innocent.  i ask that the LAW presume
    she's innocent - which means that she doesn't fry until/unless she is
    convicted in a court of law by a jury of her peers.  only way around
    the jury show would be if she chose to plead guilty, and you can bet
    her lieyer won't let her do that.

If it were only to be found guilty _ONCE_ by a jury of her peers it would
be one thing, but we all know full well that she'll be the subject of
appeal after endless appeal. 

    .20
    
    what really frosts me is appeals filed by some do-gooder group on
    behalf of a convict who DOESN'T WANT to appeal.  talk about sticking
    your nose in where it's not wanted...

RE         <<< Note 37.20 by TOOK::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)" >>>

>If it were only to be found guilty _ONCE_ by a jury of her peers it would
>be one thing, but we all know full well that she'll be the subject of
>appeal after endless appeal. 

  If she is convicted she is still being found guilty only once. The appeals
are not tests of guilt or innocence they are tests of the law and procedures
as they were applied in the court of original jurisdiction. 

  George

    See last version of soapbox for ensuing arguments.
    
    

Note 37.10 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  This woman is presumed innocent until proven guilty before a jury of her
>peers and no desire for vengeance is worth allowing our nation to be reduced to
>a police state. 
>
>  Susan Smith, allegedly murders her sons,
 
    believe it or not george i thought about this before entering .0. fact
    is she admits to murdering them. the title stays. only thing to be
    decided is punishment.

RE            <<< Note 37.24 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    believe it or not george i thought about this before entering .0. fact
>    is she admits to murdering them. the title stays. only thing to be
>    decided is punishment.

  Let's say that you didn't like the mayor and put a sign up in your front yard
for his opponent. Then say the Sheriff's deputies showed up at 2am, dragged you
from your house and after 8 hours of "questioning" you emerged somewhat bloody
from your "unfortunate fall" while the Sheriff held up a murder confession with
your name on it. 

  Should we all just drag you out and string you up to the nearest tree or do
you feel that you should have an opportunity to tell your side of the story?

  Oh wait, silly me. Why should you have a chance to even answer that question.
You've already said that if someone confesses there's no need to determine
guilt, only their punishment.

  George

Suzie Smith didn't look very bloodied the day after taken into custody.
Not even a fingernail extracted.

    and it's not as if the sheriff's goons could threaten her with the
    possibility that they'd harm her kids...

    
    You guys are gonna let this Polack take you down that "alledged" path
    again.... and at the end he's gonna say "See!! I won again!!"
    

    Hey Andy, quit being such a polack will ya?  You polack.

    	I imagine she is guilty. She still has a right to a trial. With out
    it, If they wanted, police could just whip up a confession, no rough
    stuff nessasary. Now we don't need a trial, we have a confession right?
    If some one dispute the validity of the confession, then who's to
    decide if it's valid or not? Sounds like we're right back to Judge and
    Jury again.
    
    
    							Steve Ricker
    

    I'm not sure I'd give the death penalty on this one.  I'm not much
    inclined to it anyway, but it seems more appropriate for serial killers
    and sociopaths.  I find it unlikely that Susan Smith would choose to
    kill again.
    
    But then, I don't have kids, so I don't have the same feelings about
    this case that parents might have.

    I think many of you are making a big assumption with your certainty
    that this will go to trial.  My guess is her attorney will try and
    get her declared incompetent before trial; if this fails he just might
    have her plead guilty but insane and throw herself on the mercy of
    the court.
    
    I have a gut feeling that the last thing her attorney wants is a
    trial.  I don't think he really WANTS to risk finding out what the
    citizens would bring upon her if they have a chance to sit in judgment
    of her.
    
    

Note 37.31 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    george's pathetic analogy doesn't deserve a response. i am somewhat
    embarassed to admint i actually read the damn thing. but here. chels,
    what are you saying with this?
    
    >I'm not sure I'd give the death penalty on this one.  I'm not much
    >inclined to it anyway, but it seems more appropriate for serial killers
    >and sociopaths.  I find it unlikely that Susan Smith would choose to
    >kill again.
    
    so how many does one have to kill to be labeled a serial killer in your
    book? two? eight? more? or is it the method of killing that's more
    important? christ, what nonsense. and you don't think she would kill
    again, eh? well first off, the death penalty isn't given out for
    potential future killings by the suspect, and second, i am positive
    that no one thought she would choose to kill the first time. fak is,
    she did it. unlike george's ramblings, the only thing remaining is
    determination of punishment. if this doesn't warrant the death penalty,
    then why fry someone who randomly shoots two innocents in a likker
    store hold up? those folks fry. not regularly enough, but some do fry.
    susan smith's crime is arguably much more "inhuman".
    

    Re: .33
    
    >or is it the method of killing that's more important?
    
    Neither the number or the method are most important.  The question is
    whether the person constitutes a threat against society as a whole. 
    Someone who is willing to kill again and again and again is patently a
    threat to society.  Someone who kills within their family is, in
    general, a threat to their family.  They probably won't go around
    killing total strangers.
    
    >why fry someone who randomly shoots two innocents in a likker store
    >hold up?
    
    Again, threat to society.  To kill strangers for no reason -- this is
    a clear threat to the overall society.  Someone who kills from despair
    (like some of those postal workers) at least has a reason.  Those who
    kill for no reason demonstrate they are amoral.  Not immoral, amoral. 
    I believe Susan Smith still constrains a fair portion of her behavior
    according to societal standards.

Note 37.34 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    > Someone who is willing to kill again and again and again is patently a
    >threat to society.  Someone who kills within their family is, in
    >general, a threat to their family.  They probably won't go around
    >killing total strangers.
    
    CHELS! i can't believe you said that. killing family members isn't a
    threat to society? or at least not as "bad" as killing total strangers?
    therefore, the guilty should be judged differently? that's WAY wrong.
    you could argue that the guy who shoots two innocents while paniking
    holding up the likker store didn't kill in the 1st degree. while what
    susan did most certainly was. yet you say the likker store bandit's
    crime is more worthy of the death penalty. you've shown more sense than
    that over the years chels. i am surprised.

    Re: .35
    
    >killing family members isn't a threat to society?
    
    Not a threat to society overall.  This person has limited their crimes
    to a small segment of the population.  Serial killers and sociopaths
    aren't so selective.
    
    >or at least not as "bad" as killing total strangers?
    
    Depends on what you mean by "bad."  It's not as great a threat to the
    safety of the general public.
    
    >you could argue that the guy who shoots two innocents while paniking
    >holding up the likker store didn't kill in the 1st degree.
    
    Oh, he didn't just shoot them randomly, he panicked.  That's different. 
    If he panicked, at least he had _some_ kind of reason, other than "I
    just felt like it."  This person is probably not a habitual killer.  I
    wouldn't feel the death penalty was appropriate in that case.
    
    >yet you say the likker store bandit's crime is more worthy of the
    >death penalty.
    
    The way it was originally described, it was.

    
    
    
    	bottom line for me:
    
    	If one is found guilty of murder, no matter if the murder was
    committed whilst in the act of another crime or as the sole crime, one
    should be put to death. If someone can murder once, they can murder
    again. Justifyiable homocide is one thing and will be determined as
    such in a court of law....murder is another....
    
    
    jim

    
    Easy way to prevent someone becoming a serial killer....
    
     Fry them the first time.... end of serial...

Note 37.36 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA 
    
    >Not a threat to society overall.  This person has limited their crimes
    >to a small segment of the population.  Serial killers and sociopaths
        >aren't so selective.
  
    chels. now i sorta like ya and don't want to point out a really dumb
    statement but you leave me no choice. your entire "threat" to society
    defense goes right down the toilet with this statement. the shrinks,
    and fruitcakes that do the killings, have all stated MANY times that
    serial and socaiapa....whatever killers are EXTREMELY selective about
    the segments of the population they perform their henious crimes on.

    
    I don't know.  It couls be argued that a parent that would kil their
    own children would be more likely to kill anyone and everyone else.  I
    mean, if you kill the people you care about (supposedly) the most, why
    would you hesitate to kill anyone else?
    
    
    Mike

    Maybe Susan Smith should be tried by a jury of her peers...mothers with
    kids...
    
    if one took a poll on Donahue, Oprah, and Geraldo, those mothers would
    overwhelmingly say "Fry 'em."
    
    the general public is "Less" liberal than the media paints US society
    out to be

    Re: .37
    
    >If someone can murder once, they can murder again.
    
    And people who haven't committed murder can murder at least once.  You
    gonna start calling for preemptive strikes.
    
    
    Re: .38
    
    You have to _catch_ them after the first one.  They usually don't.

    Re: .39
    
    >the shrinks, and fruitcakes that do the killings, have all stated MANY 
    >times that serial and socaiapa....whatever killers are EXTREMELY 
    >selective about the segments of the population they perform their 
    >henious crimes on.
    
    Serial killers have patterns.  Sociopaths might, if it amuses them. 
    And serial killers still choose from a broader range of victims, as
    proven by the fact that they manage to kill a lot more people than most
    "typical" killers.

    
    re: .42
>    And people who haven't committed murder can murder at least once.  You
>    gonna start calling for preemptive strikes.
    
	Ohmuhgawd, think about who yer talkin' to before ya throw out
    outlandish crap like that. If anyone is against prior restraint, it's
    moi. BUT, once someone crosses the line into being a criminal, that's
    it. No three strikes crapola....1 strike is all you get in the real
    world...
    
    	The logic in your reply is flawed at best, more likely on the side
    of ludicrous....
    
    jim

    Gee, I'm sure glad I'm *not* a member of Susan Smith's family!!
    
    Chels, there was a woman convicted in Winston Salem, N.C. not too
    long ago that disputes your argument that someone who killed within
    their family once would not be a future threat to society.  This
    woman got away with "accidentally" shooting her first husband in the
    head.  She collected a sizeable payoff of his insurance because police
    were lax conducting an investigation and "she seemed like such a fine,
    upstanding woman".  She didn't wait long to re-marry; when her spending
    habits got her into trouble......guess how she tried to get out?
    
    Yep, hubby #2 bit the farm, another accidental shot to the head....and
    she almost got away with it the second time!!  The scary part of this
    was the psychiatric examination indicated that this woman felt she
    had gotten away with it the first time, and if she had gotten away
    a second time the shrink had no doubt she would re-marry and *probably*
    repeat the pattern.
    
    Good arguments could be made that both Susan Smith and the woman in
    N.C. are wacked-out; it doesn't change the fact that they both con-
    cocted elaborate stories to cover their crimes and they both rode a
    long way on their public persona, i.e. "those sweet women couldn't/
    wouldn't do such a thing".
    
    The mother of the N.C. woman's second husband made the observation
    "if she had been tried and convicted after killing her first husband,
    my son would still be alive today".
    

     Jim's logic is "bullet-proof." How many strikes does the victim get
     anyway?
    
     Chip

    Re: .44
    
    >think about who yer talkin' to before ya throw out outlandish crap like 
    >that.
    
    I really have no idea.  I don't put a lot of effort into keeping track
    of names and personalities and opinions.
    
    >BUT, once someone crosses the line into being a criminal, that's it.
    
    Your statement was that we should kill them because of what they might
    do in the future (kill more people) rather than what they did in the
    past.  I would consider that statement an example of prior restraint.

    Re: .45
    
    >that someone who killed within their family once would not be a future 
    >threat to society.
    
    I'm not naive enough to make any such argument.  I know better than to
    say "never."  I say that it isn't highly likely.

    <- unlikely based on what?
    
       Chip

    
    
    re: .47
>    Your statement was that we should kill them because of what they might
>    do in the future (kill more people) rather than what they did in the
>    past.  I would consider that statement an example of prior restraint.
    
    	Semantics Chels, yer arguing semantics. They should be fry'd
    because they murdered someone. The fact that 70% of all violent crime
    is committed by repeat offenders adds a bonus to the fact of frying
    them outright.
    
    	I am advocation this action only for those that have already
    committed a crime...that is not prior restraint.
    
    jim
    

    Re: .49
    
    Based on the reasons people kill.
    
    
    Re: .50
    
    >Semantics Chels, yer arguing semantics.
    
    And who gave me the ammunition?  Say what you mean, don't say what you
    don't mean.  It's not that difficult.

    
    
    	re: .51
    
    	Use yer brain to figure it out chels....do I have to spell it out
    in painstaking detail for the unenlightened?
    
    
    jim

    Re: .52
    
    From your .37:
    
    |If one is found guilty of murder, no matter if the murder was
    |committed whilst in the act of another crime or as the sole crime, one 
    |should be put to death. If someone can murder once, they can murder
    |again.
    
    You gave only one reason in that note:  If someone can murder once,
    they can murder again.  In that note, you justified your position
    according to what people might do in the future.
    
    You wrote it, so deal with it.

    
    
    >    You gave only one reason in that note:  If someone can murder once,
>    they can murder again.  In that note, you justified your position
>    according to what people might do in the future.
    
    	ah, but I based my assumption on what they had done in the past,
    which makes them a criminal already. I did not say they should be
    killed solely *because* they may murder again, but because they have
    ALREADY murdered someone. I just pointed out that they may also murder
    someone else. 
    
    	your interpretation of what I write is yours and yours alone
    Chels...quit trying to convince me that you're correct and I'm wrong.
    
    
    jim	

    Re: .54
    
    >I did not say they should be killed solely *because* they may murder 
    >again, but because they have ALREADY murdered someone.
    
    Not in .37 you didn't.
    
    >quit trying to convince me that you're correct and I'm wrong.
    
    I'm not.  I'm just feeding you more and more rope.

    fwiw-I knew that was what Jim meant.

    
    Usually, Chels trips and falls all over that rope she's feeding out...
    

    just think of the ratings a public, televised hanging would get. all
    time record that might never be broken. assuming, of course, it could
    be carried out in a timely fashion while the story is still fresh.

    Hang her during halftime at the superbowl. 

    It's better than the Michael Jackson Extraveganza!
    
    -b

Note 37.59 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK
    
    >>Hang her during halftime at the superbowl. 
    
    might also have the positive effect of getting more wimmins to likin
    murican football.

    not the superbowl. It's the one bowl game I enjoy.
    Plus that's only one person per year per game. 
    How  many are currently on death row?
    
    You muricans have all those college bowl games with real boring
    halftime shows...
    
    

	re: rope

	no need to give me rope chels....yer hangin' yerself just fine without
me.....


jim

    Re: .63
    
    Really?  What have I said that is incorrect?  Don't just posture, put
    your money where your mouth is.  I've documented my claims, and you've
    just blown hot air.
    
    Oh, well, this is Soapbox, after all.  No point in having standards.

>>    fwiw-I knew that was what Jim meant.

	So did I.

re: Chels

	Chels dear, you have documented nothing but the fact that you can
extrapolate a single sentence and base the entire content of a note upon it. I'm
sorry, but I'm not buying that you documented anything but what you want to see.


jim

>	Chels dear, you have documented nothing but the fact that you can
>extrapolate a single sentence and base the entire content of a note upon it. I'm
>sorry, but I'm not buying that you documented anything but what you want to see.

    yup. but she IS good at it.

	aye captain....ya got that right...:)

    
    
    SNARF!  :*)
    

	I knew you were close darlin'....:*)

    
    
    Yup.
    
    Oh, and I still think this Smith chick should be drowned...almost....
    twice....then all the way.  Let her know how her kids felt.
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    Re: .66
    
    >you have documented nothing but the fact that you can extrapolate a 
    >single sentence
    
    The documentation used two sentences.
    
    >and base the entire content of a note upon it.
    
    Nope.  I clearly stated that you provided no other justification in the
    rest of the note.  Pay attention:
    
    |If one is found guilty of murder, no matter if the murder was
    |committed whilst in the act of another crime or as the sole crime, one
    |should be put to death.
    
    This is your thesis statement:  if someone has killed, they should be
    put to death.  It doesn't say _why_ this should be true, only that it
    should be true.
    
    |If someone can murder once, they can murder again.
    
    Standard paragraph structure -- your remaining statements support your
    thesis.  Therefore, this must be the "why" behind your thesis statement.  
    Unless, of course, you haven't the faintest idea how to structure a
    coherent statement of position.
    
    My mistake.  I keep assuming people know how to write.  Never mind.

    
    
    
    
    Well, if she is to be put to death, make it as swift and as painless as
    possible.  No need to take it down to the lower levels.  Regardless of
    how barbaric the crime is, we are supposed to be a civilized culture
    and that is why we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.
    
    
    Mike

I'm not sure I understand the point.

Are you saying that because Susan Smith killed her family members, she's
not likely to kill again, and should get off with a very light punishment?

That's preposterous.

Would you say the same for O.J.?

/john

	Chels, you are so quaint. I don't know how to construct a paragraph?
pshaw. It's yer interpretation of my paragraph that is flawed, not my writing. I
suppose you only believe there should be one interpretation for a poem or
literary work?

	I am telling you I was not advocating preventative medicine. You insist
I was. That's your opinion....not mine.


jim

    well chels, you stepped over the line on this one. best suck it up and
    move on.

    RE: .18
    
    >>I'm sorry; I have a hard time presuming someone innocent when they've
    >>already confessed to the d*mn crime!!  I don't give a rat's patooti
      =====================================
    >>WHY she did it; I just hope justice is sure and swift!!
    
    This is the exact reason why there should not be a trial.   She already
    admitted to and showed the police the position of the murder weapon
    (the car, with the kids still in it!).  The only court action needed in
    this case is when she will die to pay for her crimes.
    
    If there was any doubt of the commission of the crime then a trial is
    necessary.  But if there is a confession, or solid eye-witnesses, then
    this trial and appeal, trial and appeal, etc... is a waste of time and
    taxpayer money.
    
    

    In our system, which was once good, even a confessed killer has the
    right to be heard in court.  At that time they may forego a jury trial
    by pleading guilty and go straight to sentencing.  It is NOT correct to
    say "She confessed, so let's just set 'er down in the chair and apply
    the current..."
    
    Please don't confuse me with idiots who think that a confessed murderer
    is "innocent until proven guilty".  Guilty's guilty.  However, the
    *right* to a trial is a cornerstone of a just society.  Even though our
    society is no longer just, that particular piece of it still exists.
    
    Later,
    	   Mike

Note 37.77 by OAW::MILLER 
    
    >>This is the exact reason why there should not be a trial.   She already
    
    your leaving yourself wide open for a viscious attack by meowski. he
    the defender of all that's constitutionally and politically korrect.

    re .79
    
    	And apperently the defender of what is right, too. If she doesn't
    want a trial, that is what pleading guilty is for. Then she can be
    sentenced without trial. If she recants her confession (says it was
    coerced, ect.) then who is to decide if it was or wasn't. The proper
    place for determining guilt or inocennce is always the courtroom, not
    the police station. (and I'm not anti-cop, a have a few in my family
    and almost became one myself)
    
    
    							S.R.

    Re: .74
    
    >should get off with a very light punishment?
    
    Depends on what you mean by "very light punishment."  I have said that
    I don't think I would apply the death penalty in her case.  That's
    something I would reserve for unregenerate killers, like serial killers
    or sociopaths.  Now, if you consider anything less than the death
    penalty to be "very light punishment," then the answer is yes.
    
    >That's preposterous.
    
    You say you don't understand, you ask a question, you assume my answer,
    and then you label an answer I haven't provided.  "Preposterous" pretty
    much covers the situation.

    Re: .75
    
    >I don't know how to construct a paragraph?
    
    Demonstrably so.
    
    >I am telling you I was not advocating preventative medicine.  You
    >insist I was.
    
    I insist that your words, as written, demonstrate a position of prior
    restraint, regardless of your intent.  I don't discuss your intent,
    only the implication of what you wrote.
    
    >That's your opinion....not mine.
    
    I'm so surprised to hear that.  Astonished, even.  Thanks for sharing
    that with us.

    If the intent of execution is punishment, she should be executed in a
    particularly painful manner, perhaps in the same way her boys were. I'm
    sure that one of those large, see-through tanks that magicians use to
    escape from would suffice. She should be restrained, then dropped into
    a tank full of water.  If it was conducted in public, it may also have
    the effect of deterring future crimes such as this one(but I doubt it).
    
    Unlike many liberals, I'm for capital punishment. But, I don't believe
    that we should act as if the only reason for it is as a deterrent to
    future crime. It is, and should be, punishment for the crime.

RE            <<< Note 37.79 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    
>    your leaving yourself wide open for a vicious attack by meowski. he
>    the defender of all that's constitutionally and politically korrect.

  So defending the Constitution is Political Correctness?

  Funny the way the inauguration of the President involves an oath to be
Politically Correct.

  Let there be no doubt, the Right Wing HATES the Constitution of the United
States the moment it is treated as more than an icon.

  When you actually read it you find it stands for personal freedom which
the right wing detests.

  Let me guess, If I came down to Texas spewing all this Constitutional Freedom
krap I'd better bring my body guard along.

  George

    
    RE: .84
    
    They say that drowning is not a particularly painful way to go... One
    of the better ways to go I hear....
    

RE               <<< Note 37.84 by BSS::DEASON "Duck and Cover" >>>
>                              -< My two cents!! >-

>I'm
>    sure that one of those large, see-through tanks that magicians use to
>    escape from would suffice. She should be restrained, then dropped into
>    a tank full of water.  If it was conducted in public, it may also have
>    the effect of deterring future crimes such as this one(but I doubt it).
    
  More contempt of the Constitution from the right wing. Notice here a blatant
assault on the 8th amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. 

  Now if you feel that way fine. If you really hate our Constitution and all
it stands for than that's the way you feel.

  But why do we always have to hear this nonsense about how it's the Right Wing
that is in favor of a literal interpretation of the Constitution? The Right
Wing preaches love of the Constitution but they practice hate for the ideas
of the Constitution in just about every thread of this notes file. 

  Make up your mind, to you support that document or not?

  George

Her confession has been published.

A defense lawyer could actually use it to help build a defense against
a premeditated murder charge.

The purpose of the trial will be to determine exactly which of the many
different legal definitions of the degrees of murder (each of which has
different penalties) applies.

/john

    re.87
    I haven't been accused of being right-wing before, but I guess in this
    instance, I'm guilty. I believe strongly in the Constitution, but I
    don't believe our FF would recognize the interpretations of it that now
    exist. The simple facts are: She confessed. Not only did she admit to
    doing it, she even led police to the car. Her crime was especially
    heinous--two innocent children, restrained in their car seats, trusting
    in their mother. As punishment for her crime, she should be put to
    death. In this particular case, I feel it should be quick, and
    PAINFUL!!
    
    As for the previous note about the father exacting revenge, I'm
    inclined to agree--if she was my ex-wife, and those were my children, I
    would soon be spending a long time in the crossbar hotel.

Note 37.85 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  When you actually read it you find it stands for personal freedom which
>the right wing detests.
    
    WHAT GALL!! in the past two years this admin has attacked the
    constitution from unprecedented angles. it was YOUR BOY in the white
    house, in conjunction with the head gestapo agent (reno) that said they
    didn't care if passage of the assualt weapons ban was a violation of
    the constitution. they just wanted it passed and then see if the law
    could stand the test of time in the courts. and this is what your
    defending as constitutionally correct?

RE           <<< Note 37.89 by BSS::DEASON "Hit'em where they ain't" >>>
                          -< More from the mountains >-
>    I believe strongly in the Constitution, but I
>    don't believe our FF would recognize the interpretations of it that now
>    exist. ... As punishment for her crime, she should be put to
>    death. In this particular case, I feel it should be quick, and
>    PAINFUL!!
    
  And pray tell what interpretation do you subscribe to?

  The founding fathers wrote the 8th amendment specifically to outlaw exactly
the type of thing you are proposing. While under British control, the British
military often used cruel types of punishment against colonists and when the
Constitutions of the various states and the Bill of Rights were written they
had protections against those sorts of punishments for all crimes. 

  But I'm curious, just what do you feel is the intent of the 8th Amendment?

  Here it is, take a crack,

     "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor 
  cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

  George

RE            <<< Note 37.90 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    WHAT GALL!! in the past two years this admin has attacked the
>    constitution from unprecedented angles. 

  No, it's the right wing that attacks the Constitution from unprecedented
angles. You are against the right to a fair trial, against free speech,
against freedom of religion, against the right to privacy, in favor of
cruel and unusual punishment, against due process, the list goes on.

  Meanwhile the only thing that you can point to that liberals oppose are
guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns,
and that's suppose to be unprecedented angles?

  The Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is to support
a well ordered militia and I've never heard a liberal including the President
speak out against that concept.

  George

    	Well that settles it, I guess...

Note 37.92 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  No, it's the right wing that attacks the Constitution from unprecedented
>angles. You are against the right to a fair trial, against free speech,
>against freedom of religion, against the right to privacy, in favor of
>cruel and unusual punishment, against due process, the list goes on.

    where the hell you been the last two years george? venus? its well
    documented what this admin is pursuing that violates nearly all the
    amendments to the constitution except the third. educating you grows
    boring.

    
    RE: .87
    
    >More contempt of the Constitution from the right wing. Notice here a
    >blatant assault on the 8th amendment protection from cruel and unusual
    >punishment
    
    
      So tell us George... what was the opposite of "cruel and unusual
    punishment" that was used during the time of the Constitutions writing
    and would you subscribe to using that method today?

RE            <<< Note 37.94 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    where the hell you been the last two years george? venus? its well
>    documented what this admin is pursuing that violates nearly all the
>    amendments to the constitution except the third. educating you grows
>    boring.

  No, you are not educating anyone, just expressing your opinion. I believe I
started a note on the constitution a month or so ago and I had to drag you guys
kicking and screaming into the debate. 

  As for this note, it's the Conservatives that have been consistently trashing
the Constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. How can you criticize
liberals for being against the Constitution in the very note where
conservatives have constantly argued that the right to a fair trial should not
be granted when the police come up with a confession? 

  George 

RE       <<< Note 37.95 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>

>      So tell us George... what was the opposite of "cruel and unusual
>    punishment" that was used during the time of the Constitutions writing
>    and would you subscribe to using that method today?

  The opposite of "cruel and unusual punishment" was acquittal and yes I support
that today. 

  I'm still waiting for what will no doubt be the entertaining conservative
opinion as to what the 8th amendment means and how the death's called for
in this note could be allowed under that protection.

  George

    	re. 97
    
    	Sorry, George, I'm going to abandon the liberal view on this one.
    While I fully suport her right to a trail, even after a confession, I
    don't find the death penalty either cruel or unusual.
    
    
    								S.R. 

The similarity to a typical pro-abortion argument raises its head in Susan
Smith's confession.

She says that when she decided to kill herself, she didn't want her children
to grow up without a mom, so they had to die with her.

This is similar to the bogus pro-abortion argument that the child is better
off being killed before being born than being placed for adoption.

/john

My 1st one in the new box...

    It would really be nice if we could keep the abortion talk in the
    abortion note and stop comparing everything to abortion, but I suppose
    that is too much to ask.

Note 37.96 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  As for this note, it's the Conservatives that have been consistently trashing
>the Constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. How can you criticize
>liberals for being against the Constitution in the very note where
>conservatives have constantly argued that the right to a fair trial should not
>be granted when the police come up with a confession? 

    i've advocated no such thing george. although in this case i believe a
    fair trial, followed by a long fall with a short rope, shouldn't take
    more than 60 minutes nor cost more than a cheap used rope.

    RE: .97
    
    
    
>>      So tell us George... what was the opposite of "cruel and unusual
>>    punishment" that was used during the time of the Constitutions writing
>>    and would you subscribe to using that method today?

>  The opposite of "cruel and unusual punishment" was acquittal and yes I 
    >support that today. 

    
     Very well George... you want to play your little word games...
    
    Let me re-phrase the question... 
    
    What was the "norm" for punishment in those days that was not
    considered "cruel and unusual" and would you subscribe to using that
    method today?

    
    
    
    Here in Maryland, there is another incident where the mother killed her
    two children.  In this case, she set the house on fire with the kids
    inside sleeping.  She too, has confessed.
    
    
    
    Mike

        Dunno if this one surfaced here yet...
        
------------------------------

The people of South Carolina are trying to decide on a suitable punishment 
for Susan Smith who drove her car into a river, left drowning victims 
inside,  and then lied to the entire nation about what she did.

In Massachusetts, it will get you a U.S. Senate seat.

------------------------------
        

    re: .96
    
    Well that was twice he said it...must mean it's true.  8^)

RE           <<< Note 37.102 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    i've advocated no such thing george. although in this case i believe a
>    fair trial, followed by a long fall with a short rope, shouldn't take
>    more than 60 minutes nor cost more than a cheap used rope.

  Well you haven't, but several others have.

  Although the way you have worded your note above you are leaving open the
possibility of her being hung even if she is acquitted.

  George

RE       <<< Note 37.103 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>

>    What was the "norm" for punishment in those days that was not
>    considered "cruel and unusual" and would you subscribe to using that
>    method today?

  I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. My point has been that
she is entitled to a fair trial and that if she is convicted of 1st degree
murder with special circumstances and sentenced to death that it should not be
cruel and unusual. 

  While I'm not crazy about the death penalty and I believe that for practical
reasons it is next to useless, if South Carolina feels that they want to
execute convicted murderers in a humane way then I see no constitutional
problems.

  George

    
    
    I agree with George.  If found guilty and sentenced to death, the
    punishment should be swift and as painless as possible.
    
    
    Mike

    RE; .108
    
    >I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.
    
    You don't seem to see a lot of things (except towels)...
    
    You espouse we follow the "letter of the law" vis the 8th amendment
    and it being against "cruel and unusual punishment". 
    
     I just wanted to make sure that you also espouse the "norm" for
    punishment that was established at the time.
    
     Since you don't approve of capital punishment, you have no business
    spouting off about anyone following the 8th... simple... no?

      re: .110
    
      To be fair, if it can be shown that one 'norm' is different 
      than the historical, it would then follow that it is not
      logical that all other norms must be consistent with their
      historicals.
    
      It was a norm that blacks could be slaves and many people
      (such as women) could not vote.
    
      What is the strength of an argument if it is established 
      that it is not always correct to be identical to what
      the historical norms were?
                      

    .93:
    
    Joe, when I have to deal with such things at home, I don't use towels.
    That kind of thing is properly dealt with by using a diaper.
    
    Dick

Note 37.107 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI 
    
>>    i've advocated no such thing george. although in this case i believe a
>>    fair trial, followed by a long fall with a short rope, shouldn't take
>>    more than 60 minutes nor cost more than a cheap used rope.
>
>  Well you haven't, but several others have.

    good. glad we got that straight.
    
>  Although the way you have worded your note above you are leaving open the
>possibility of her being hung even if she is acquitted.

    no i didn't. if you will recall, my position is that a fair trial
    should be carried out and that the trial's findings of a "guilty"
    verdict are simply a formality. the only thing left is determination of
    sentence. and i've state my preference.
 

RE       <<< Note 37.110 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>

>     Since you don't approve of capital punishment, you have no business
>    spouting off about anyone following the 8th... simple... no?

  No. First of all I never said there was a Constitutional problem with the
death penalty based on the 8th amendment. My objections to the death penalty
are political and are based on the fact that I believe it to be an impractical
punishment of the guilty and a danger to the wrongly convicted.

  What I said is that I have a problem with the constitutionality of a cruel and
unusual implementation of the death penalty such as the methods that have been
suggested in this string. 

  Death by drowning while not common was used occasionally at the Tower of
London and by various religious groups in the Colonies prior to the writing of
the Constitution and was known to the Founding Fathers when the 8th amendment
was written. The common form of execution at the time was by hanging and a long
drop was used to insure a quick death. 

  George

    .85, George...
    
    You claim to defend the constitution?  By saying confessed killers are
    innocent?
    
    The constitution says that everybody is entitled to a fair trial.  This
    presumes that even guilty parties are entitled to a fair trial.  It
    does not state that everybody is innocent.  Just that the burden of
    proof of guilt resides with the court.
    
    There's a difference.
    
    It is astonishing that somebody who likes what Ted Kennedy does turns
    around and claims to defend the constitution.  If you liked the
    constitution you'd be against pretty much everything that Teddy stands
    for, politically speaking.
    
    Whatever...

    oops.  I made an intelligent reply to George before I noticed that he'd
    started spouting again.
    
    <sound-of-towel-being-thrown-in>

RE             <<< Note 37.115 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    You claim to defend the constitution?  By saying confessed killers are
>    innocent?

  No I never said that. I claim to defend the constitution by saying that
confessed defendants are entitled to a fair trial. Try reading a little more
carefully.
    
>    It is astonishing that somebody who likes what Ted Kennedy does turns
>    around and claims to defend the constitution.  If you liked the
>    constitution you'd be against pretty much everything that Teddy stands
>    for, politically speaking.
    
  Kennedy was the one who defended the nation from Robert Bork who believed
that there is no constitutional right to privacy and that the 1st amendment
should be limited to political debates. The main reason I support him is
because of his strong record on defending the Constitution from conservatives
who wish to see the rights of individuals rolled back.

  George

    George,
    you keep harping on Bork.  Admit it, it's not just Bork who can't
    read when it comes to the Constitution.  Look to your own state
    and the issue of the 2nd Amendment.  Talk that one up a while and
    see if TedK has reading problems.
    
    It's not just Bork, or Conservatives, it's (almost) everyone in gov't.

    .119 - Glad you could say something, Mike.  I was rendered speechless.
    
    Kennedy defending us against "conservatives" who would take away our
    constitutional rights?  Bork?  "Constitutional right to privacy?"
    
    And, George, it's not that your witty repartee rendered me into
    submission, it's, well...
    
    	...for example.  I like the night because the sun is so bright, and
    in the winter when it rains, the moon smashes into mars just like Ricky
    Ricardo.
    
    You make THAT much sense to me, and I can't think of anything to say...

   <----- Here, here !!!!
    
    Marty

RE    <<< Note 37.118 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    George,
>    you keep harping on Bork.  Admit it, it's not just Bork who can't
>    read when it comes to the Constitution.  Look to your own state
>    and the issue of the 2nd Amendment.  Talk that one up a while and
>    see if TedK has reading problems.
    
  I have never known of a case where TedK or anyone else in Massachusetts said
that citizens could not possess arms to form a well ordered militia. The only
thing I see are laws against individual and unordered citizens possessing
weapons. 

  While that may be a politically controversal I don't see where it has anything
to do with the Constitution. 

  George 

RE             <<< Note 37.119 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    	...for example.  I like the night because the sun is so bright, and
>    in the winter when it rains, the moon smashes into mars just like Ricky
>    Ricardo.
>    
>    You make THAT much sense to me, and I can't think of anything to say...

  Gripe, gripe, gripe, complain, complain, complain.

  I often have to respond to "up is down and down is up" type arguments from
the right.

  Funny how there are no liberals saying that they agree with my point of view
but feel my reasoning is all screwed up.

  George

re: Note 37.121 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI 
    
>  I have never known of a case where TedK or anyone else in Massachusetts said
>that citizens could not possess arms to form a well ordered militia. The only
>thing I see are laws against individual and unordered citizens possessing
>weapons. 

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.
    						2nd Amendment
    
The Bill of Rights is a document that acknowledges INDIVIDUAL rights.
All over the place it references individual rights, EXCEPT in your
mind when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, where it supposedly becomes
a collective right.  How convenient.

The definition of militia, then and now, is every able bodied free male
between the ages of 18 and 45.  (or thereabouts)

Your creative interpretation of the Constitution is annoying, especially
when you could obtain and read the Report of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress Senate Report
(document is 88-618, which may be incorrect, since the report is from
1982) entitled "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", with thouroughly
debunks your personal opinion of what the 2nd Amendment means.

MadMike
PS. TeddyK was a member of the Committee on the Judiciary (at least his
name is on the report).

RE    <<< Note 37.123 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>The definition of militia, then and now, is every able bodied free male
>between the ages of 18 and 45.  (or thereabouts)

  ... every able bodied free male that was "well ordered".

  If you look at the organization of the Militia at the time the constitution
was written, it consisted of a company of men from a given town who were under
the command of a Captain and other officers selected by the town fathers. They
meet several times a week to call muster, drill, and otherwise behave "well
regulated" like a company of regular army troops.

  The idea was that to preserve democracy it was necessary to have these
companies so that a standing army could be quickly assembled to protect the
public from the abuse of a strong central government. 

  No where does it say that every citizen, even if they are not in a regulated
militia, is guaranteed the right to have a weapon for personal use.

>Your creative interpretation of the Constitution is annoying, especially
>when you could obtain and read the Report of the Subcommittee on the
>Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress Senate Report ...
>(document is 88-618, which may be incorrect, since the report is from
>1982) entitled "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", with thoroughly
>debunks your personal opinion of what the 2nd Amendment means.

  How can the opinion of a Congressional committee "debunk" the opinion of
an ordinary citizen as to the interpretation of the Constitution? So maybe
we disagree the Committee and I. So what?

  George

    
    did the founding fathers ever debate this issue?  did the early govt.
    ever make gun ownership illegal or prosecute private gun ownership? 
    did not almost everyone at the time of founding own a weapon?  these
    are simple questions and their answers should indicate the meaning of
    the 2nd amendment.
    
    jeff

    Hmmm, George was wondering why the liberal thinkers out there who
    agreed with him did not fault his reasoning, or something like that.\
    
    First, we must assume that there is somebody who agrees with him.  This
    is a stretch, but if we get that far, I guess whoever it is wouldn't
    question the "reasoning" of anybody who agreed with them.  Any port in
    a storm kind of thing...

RE                      <<< Note 37.125 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    did the founding fathers ever debate this issue?  did the early govt.
>    ever make gun ownership illegal or prosecute private gun ownership? 
>    did not almost everyone at the time of founding own a weapon?  these
>    are simple questions and their answers should indicate the meaning of
>    the 2nd amendment.
    
  Well the bill of rights had to be proposed by a vote of 2/3rds of both
houses of Congress so most likely yes.

  At any rate, if they had meant that anyone should be able to own a gun they
could have simply said "The right of all citizens to bear arms for what ever
reason they feel necessary shall be protected". They didn't say that. Instead
they added the phrase about the "well ordered militia".

  So if they meant anyone could have a gun for any reason, what's all that
"well ordered militia" stuff about?

  George

    Re: .125
    
    >did the founding fathers ever debate this issue?
    
    Did the founding fathers and their contemporaries have Uzis, grenade
    launchers and ground-to-air missiles?  Tanks?  Fighters?  Bombers?
    
    >did not almost everyone at the time of founding own a weapon?
    
    No.  Slaves didn't, a lot of women didn't, indentured servants and
    apprentices probably didn't, and city dwellers would probably have a
    lower percentage of gun ownership than rural citizens.

    
    answer the questions meowski.
    
    what percentage, would you guess, of the founding fathers owned
    weapons?  i'd guess at least 90.
    
    the fact that weaponry has become more sophisticated and available does
    not address the questions in any way.  if you were to argue that
    because of these developments we should now outlaw private gun
    ownership, that would be an altogether different argument than arguing
    the intention of the consitution, wouldn't it.
    
    jeff

                     <<< Note 37.121 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I have never known of a case where TedK or anyone else in Massachusetts said
>that citizens could not possess arms to form a well ordered militia. The only
>thing I see are laws against individual and unordered citizens possessing
>weapons. 

George,	Please enlighten us on the unique definition of "people" (one out
	of 41 times) that is required to make your interpretation of the
	second amendment valid.

Jim

                     <<< Note 37.127 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  At any rate, if they had meant that anyone should be able to own a gun they
>could have simply said "The right of all citizens to bear arms for what ever
>reason they feel necessary shall be protected". They didn't say that. Instead
>they added the phrase about the "well ordered militia".

	They also deleted the phrase "for the common defense" from the
	first draft of the proposed Amendment. 

Jim

    Re: .129
    
    >the fact that weaponry has become more sophisticated and available
    >does not address the questions in any way.
    
    Did you intend to address this statement to George?  Because it should
    be addressed to me; I'm the one who made the point about
    sophistication.  (Availability is not something I mentioned, though.)
    
    The Founding Fathers were suspicious of standing armies, and intended
    to use a citizen militia for self-defense.  Some years after the Bill
    of Rights was ratified and we had ourselves a government, they quickly
    discovered that a citizen militia was impractical.  Then there's the
    navy -- Jefferson didn't want one, but wound up creating one because he
    found it was needed.  Today, of course, all-citizen defense would be
    even more impractical, given increased sophistication of weaponry.
    
    The point is that original intent is not a sufficient or even desirable
    deciding factor because things have changed out of all recognition
    since 1787.

    
    RE: .127
    
    >Well the bill of rights had to be proposed by a vote of 2/3rds of both
    >houses of Congress so most likely yes.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    Pure speculation on your part.... Your lawyer friend would hang you out
    to dry on this one...

    
    i did mean to address it to you...sorry.
    
    then we can scrap the whole constitution since the world is so
    different now?  doesn't that follow, logically, from your statement?
    
    i do wish George or anyone else would address the simple questions i
    asked.  my present view is on the framers' intent, not on current
    factors.  surely meowski argues, poorly, from an intent point of view.
    
    jeff

    Re: .134
    
    >then we can scrap the whole constitution since the world is so
    >different now?  doesn't that follow, logically, from your statement?
    
    Nope.  Sometimes the differences are significant, sometimes they
    aren't.  Freedom of the press is still relevant, as is the requirement
    for warrants for search and seizure.  But the Founding Fathers were not
    omniscient or prescient, so we should not restrict ourselves to only
    their vision.

    
    i wonder how the framers expected the people to overthrow an oppressive
    govt. without firearms.  were they not serious about this statement when 
    they declared their independence.  were they oblivious, when they made 
    their statement, to the idea that the same tyranny england showed over 
    the colonies could occur by the govt. of the new republic?  
    
    jeff

    The purpose of maintaining an armed citizenry (militia, as opposed to
    standing army) was to enable the citizens to defend themselves against
    a tyrannical government.
    
    I'm not going to post references on this, but just about everyone
    involved in those days wrote of this at length, from Jefferson to
    Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, damn near everybody.
    
    Also well documented was the knowledge these men had that our
    government WOULD become corrupt - there were no illusions about that. 
    Jefferson specifically said there ought to be a good sized rebellion
    every 25 years or so just to keep the buggers in line (I'm paraphrasing
    liberally here).  Washington referred to civilian arms as "freedom's
    teeth".
    
    And the reason they did NOT specify what kind of arms, was because they
    recognized that arms technology changed, and that in order to
    effectively deter tyranny, citizens would need to be appropriately
    armed.
    
    If you disagree with them, that's fine, but please don't go on about
    how "they had no idea what would happen".  They predicted things pretty
    well, as far as I can see.  I don't think they suspected the degree of
    corruption that would be tolerated, though.

    	All this gun debating, and Susan Smith didn't even use a gun...

    Well, chelsea has one thing "right".
    
    How could our founding fathers forsee the breakdown of the criminal
    justice system, revolving door incarceration, free gov't subsidized
    handouts to force people to become reliant upon them and thereby
    become hopeless and lack any value for peoples lives or property?
    How could they have forseen the war on drugs which, in fighting,  so 
    blatantly violates the Constitution on the gov'ts part.
    
    Yes, at one time we were free and law abiding, but, times change and
    we've gotten away from the principles our founding fathers had envisioned.
    The document is still relevent today, our government just doesn't
    adhear to it.

             <<< Note 37.137 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    And the reason they did NOT specify what kind of arms, was because they
>    recognized that arms technology changed, and that in order to
>    effectively deter tyranny, citizens would need to be appropriately
>    armed.

Well, I have an idea! Lets take all the money that we save by pulling the 
rug out from under AFDC and other parysitic welfare programs and use it to 
arm citizens throughout the country with tanks, F-15s, napalm, cruise 
missles, and such -- so we can be appropriately armed! Wouldn't that "level 
the playing field" so to speak? We could have a lottery, since obviously
there aren't enough so EVERYONE can have their own tank. Think what it
would do for the defense industry! 

That would bring the FF's original intent to life, eh?

    
    
    
    RE: .140 yawn.....
    
    
    

RE                      <<< Note 37.129 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    answer the questions meowski.
>    
>    what percentage, would you guess, of the founding fathers owned
>    weapons?  i'd guess at least 90.

  So what if it were 100% Bend-some. None of them had gas heat and drove cars,
does that mean those things are unconstitutional?
    
>    the fact that weaponry has become more sophisticated and available does
>    not address the questions in any way.  

  No one is saying that it does.

>if you were to argue that
>    because of these developments we should now outlaw private gun
>    ownership, that would be an altogether different argument than arguing
>    the intention of the constitution, wouldn't it.
    
  I never argued that. I argued that the Constitution states that bearing arms
goes along with a "well regulated militia" and says nothing about unregulated
individuals possessing guns. 

  If they did, then fine but so what? The Constitution doesn't cover that issue
so there's no reason Congress can't regulate individual use of fire arms. The
Constitution only covers possessing arms to participate in a well regulated
militia.

  George

RE              <<< Note 37.133 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    >Well the bill of rights had to be proposed by a vote of 2/3rds of both
>    >houses of Congress so most likely yes.
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    
>    Pure speculation on your part.... Your lawyer friend would hang you out
>    to dry on this one...

  Do I understand that you don't accept the likelihood that Congress debated
the bill of rights before passing them?

  What are you saying, that they were proposed and voted on without debate?

  I'm pretty sure I've heard discussions about how James Madison took part
in Senate debates of the 2nd and 9th amendment and I'd be willing to bet that
all 10 amendments in addition to the 2 that didn't pass were debated.

  But maybe not. Anyway, what does that have to do with this discussion?

  George

RE                      <<< Note 37.143 by USAT05::BENSON >>>
>                              -< you ain't right >-

  Care to elaborate?

  George

    
    It is not logical to conclude that all the Second means is that
    those the government decides are to be armed should be armed,
    because such power existed without the Second - see the enumerated
    powers of Congress.  The Second cannot logically be construed to mean
    that an ordinary citizen has no right to arms.  Why write such a
    silly amendment, particularly given the tenor of the other enumerated
    rights, all of which are rights of individual people and also
    limitations on the government ?
    
      bb
    

  <<< Note 37.141 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Montanabound, oneof these days" >>>

>    RE: .140 yawn.....

Just curious...why does that proposition bore you? Isn't that what 
Cariochi was suggesting and fully within the logic of defending the 2nd on 
grounds of preserving our ability to overthrow tyranny? Clearly, 
deer-hunting rifles and handguns -- and even assault weapons -- aren't 
going to be enough against the modern weaponry of today's standing army.

Look, I'm not even for gun control. (I might be, if I thought it eliminate 
most violent crime, but I don't think it would.) I just think that basing 
your right to own guns on the 2nd doesn't stand up -- like a lot of other 
constitutional fundamentalism.    
    
    

    re: Note 37.147 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
    What you fail to see is that an armed populous can not be surpressed.
    Absolutely can not.  A Russian general said sometime in 1950 that
    they could not hope to hold any territory inside this country.
    You can keep the folks quiet for a while, but when you turn your
    back, you loose a couple people here and there.  What do you do?
    Flatten the county I live in?  No, send an army here, find nothing.  
    Arrive with 100 jeeps, 95 leave... and nobody knows nothin.  F-16's can 
    be flying
    around and tanks driving up and down the street, the whole works.
    You can't supress people who are armed and somewhat "organized", or
    can quickly get that way if the need arises.
    
    I'd use Vietnam as a perfect example.  You can hold all the territory,
    win all the battles, have the finest equipment and soldiers in the
    world and still loose.  

    <<< Note 37.148 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

You may be right, Mike.

    I once heard that if the US were invaded, perhaps 8 million people
    (estimated) would be able to retain guns and ammo.  From there, let's
    say that the job of each armed individual was to pop one target of
    opportunity every, say, year.
    
    How long would it take to drive the invader home?
    
    Answer: Not very...

    Re: .136
    
    >i wonder how the framers expected the people to overthrow an
    >oppressive govt. without firearms
    
    I wonder where you pulled this train of thought from, and whether
    you'll have the audacity to claim that it's derived from anything I've
    said.  What I've said is that original intent is the not be-all and
    end-all of Constitutional interpretation.

    
    
>    What you fail to see is that an armed populous can not be surpressed.
    
 	Tell this to the Muslims in Bosnia.

    >> What you fail to see is that an armed populous can not be surpressed.
    > Tell this to the Muslims in Bosnia.
    
    What is happening in Bosnia is complete anarchy, civil war.  The 
    equivalent of me and my neighbors hating each other and suddenly
    going at it in a big way.  What I'm talking about, specifically, since
    it was used in this context, is a population being supressed by
    its government.
    
    From where I'm at, if *enough* of my neighbors get fed up, we can give
    big brother the finger and he can't do squat about it short of nuking
    us, as rah mentioned.

Save the victims of the next Susan Smith.

Ban assault sedans.

/john

    
    Tom (?),
    
    
    I just remember reading that some 200+ years ago.  The American 
    citizens were outgunned then as well.  It was supposed to be a 
    blood bath, remember?  They were fighting a standing army and they were
    nothing but common folks.  That is why.
    
    
    Mike 

    
    Well, armed Americans WERE supprssed.  Took nearly 5 years and a
    million casualties or so, and ended in 1865.
    
    Not easy !  bb
    

                     <<< Note 37.142 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I never argued that. I argued that the Constitution states that bearing arms
>goes along with a "well regulated militia" and says nothing about unregulated
>individuals possessing guns. 

>  If they did, then fine but so what? The Constitution doesn't cover that issue
>so there's no reason Congress can't regulate individual use of fire arms. The
>Constitution only covers possessing arms to participate in a well regulated
>militia.

George, Why do you keep ducking my question? If your analysis is correct,
	then you MUST have some logical reasoning showing that only ONCE 
	in FORTY ONE uses of the term "people", the FFs intended to convey
	a collective right. In ALL the other 40 uses of the word, there is
	no dispute that individual rights were being described.

	The fact that the Framers offered one reason as to why they were
	protecting an INDIVIUAL right does not indicate that they believed
	this to be the ONLY reason.

Jim

    
    
    I have a couple of questions.
    
    	1. Who can form a militia?
    
    	2. If a militia is formed from 'ordinary' citizens, who supplies
    the arms?
    
    ed

    .158
    
    in the case of the militia that was formed by the ordinary citizens of
    the 'murican colonies for the purpose of resisting the tyranny of their
    government, the arms were supplied by the citizens, who had bought them
    individually from their makers.

    Gun control, gentlemen, please!

    No gun control, gentlemen, please!

    What did the last 25+ replies have to do with Susan Smith?
    
    

re  to VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly"    
                              -< Wrong context >-
   
    
  >  What I'm talking about, specifically, since
  >  it was used in this context, is a population being supressed by
  >  its government.
    
  >  From where I'm at, if *enough* of my neighbors get fed up, we can give
  >  big brother the finger and he can't do squat about it short of nuking
  >  us, as rah mentioned.
    
    	I'm not so sure about this. Maybe, maybe not. I was in the service
    and have seen a lot of foriegn armies as well as studied some of the
    methods used to cow or repress the populace. Peaple here in the states
    tend to basis there view of the army on our nice clean cut, excuse me
    ma'am professions that they see. If our goerment changed enough to used
    armed repression of the POP or if we were invaded  by another country
    (have to be a big country! China?) you might see actions diferent from
    straight police and sniper stuff. What about hostages. If you and your
    neighbors are going to act as a covert army, using the other villages
    as your cover, what if the local commander takes 10 (or a hundred)
    women and children and exacutes one for each of his men that turns up
    missing. Or one a day until You surrender. Even if you can handle this,
    You have to be mighty careful that one of the other townsfolk don't
    give you up. men will do strange things when their wifes are on the
    rack. (even if they would suffer themselfs, if differnt when it's
    someone you love) If you take to the hills, (ala Red Dawn) you are much
    more vunarable to conventional type warfare and specil forces. I never
    did bye the Red Dawn teenagers outsmarting and out fighting Spetnaz
    troops, if they could why bother with a standing army. The Spanish
    Inquistion has even more fun ideas if you need other examples. (my
    favorite is the rat mask) I won't go so far to say that an occupation
    could not be succesfully resisted, but it could involve a lot more than
    sniping at troops who limit their fire to known milatary targets like
    we do.
    
    								S.R.
    

    re: Note 37.163 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE
    
    I'll buy some of that, BUT, 
    I don't think *our* Military force will be doing the supressing.  So, 
    therefore, things won't get as messy as you mention.  I'm 99.9%
    confident if an officer tells a grunt to put a bullet in my wifes
    head, the grunt will whack the officer.
    
    *BUT*
    If we ...... ease...... our way into a non-US force, upon this
    land, things could be different as you mention (notice why I keep a good 
    watch on what the UN does IN this country? along with federal "law" 
    enforcement agencies i.e. BATF with apache attack helicopters... for what 
    taxing guns booze and cigarettes?  What the hell is going on?)
    
    FURTHERMORE
    
    I don't think a non-gov't sponsored foreign force would get past our
    shores.  So, again, your "bad news" scenario in .163 still wouldn't
    play out.
    
    I am confident IF any attack ever comes, it will come from within.
    That in itself is scarey.  Any other attack(s) will be selective, one
    time deals like the world trade center, or something.  What country
    will physically assault the United States?  No one.  It's coming from
    within, over time... win the peoples minds... and all that.  But I'm
    a conspiracy wacko (WACO? Ya, they we're religious gun freaks, don't
    worry about it...)  Not too far fetched, is it?

    	re -1
    
    	Well, I do agree that a foriegn force is unlikely to get into
    America, it would have to be REALLY BIG (again China? They don't have
    the logistics support to move that many troops I hope) So I haven't
    given a serious thought to an occupation of the U.S. I also haven't
    spent any time worrying about our own government (IF that did happen, I
    guess Iwould have to be on your side though) Most of my observations
    have been based on Countries that I've been to that were likely
    canidates for Government supression. Dominican Republic, Panama. to
    some extent Eygpt, ect. I'm just saying what can (and sometimes does,
    remember the Haitan death squads) go on in other counties. Since I
    don't really believe that sort of thing could happen here, in
    theorizing about it, I assumed a foriegn invador or an America changed
    so much from what I know, that that sort of thing could happen.
    
    
    	BTW How did we get here. This topic has certainly strayed from it's
    base note. (and I cerrtainly haven't helped that)
    
    
    								S.R.

    Perhaps we should ban out and out beligernt hand overs to mom as the
    bottom line custidial parent. 
    
    Mr. Smith wanted custody too. Why don't we ban GAL's. Or for the
    hunting sprit of the gun gang....open season on GAL's!! Or open
    lawyers! Hey! Its worth a  shot!:)
    
    

    
    "GAL'S"?  What is that?

Prosecutor is floating the idea of plea bargain.

Says a death penalty trial would be traumatic for the town and expensive enough to
likely require a raise in taxes.

Give me a G.D. break.

    
    Where's the deterrent value of capital punishment in this case?

     Where's the deterrent value in any case? same answer

    
    I don't think we need to tell mothers that if they murder their
    children they'll fry, since most mothers would choose death themselves
    to save their nippers.
    
    This crime is so strange, so weird, so very unnatural and bizarre, I
    don't think one needs to stack the deterrent deck.
    

Had it been a black defendent there would be no problem. Tell me I'm wrong.

    
    You're wrong.  Now go away.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

    
    Re: .172  Hi Brandon,
    
    >Had it been a black defendent there would be no problem. Tell me I'm
    >wrong.
    
    Sadly, you're probably right. except that you might want to
    qualify your statement to read...
    
    Had it been a [poor] black defendent there would be no problem.
    
    
    							Hank

    >This crime is so strange, so weird, so very unnatural and bizarre, I
    >don't think one needs to stack the deterrent deck.
    
     Hint: no punishment is a deterrent if it is not swiftly and
    consistently applied. This has nothing to do with stacking decks, it
    has to do with consistent application of penalties for anti-social
    behavior. Like Brandon said, if this were a black defendant...

    
|   Had it been a [poor] black defendent there would be no problem.
    
    I've never heard anyone complain that it's costing a lot of money for
    the taxpayers to bring OJ to trial.
    
    								-mr. bill

    I'm with Brandon.  This is not justice served IMO.

>    I've never heard anyone complain that it's costing a lot of money for
>    the taxpayers to bring OJ to trial.

Is OJ willing to plea bargain in order to get life instead of the death penalty?
Is his trial in a county with a total budget under $100K?

Is there no end to machinations and rationalization?

    
    A simple thought experiment:
    
    Replay the current events again twice, once as is, and once as might
    have been.
    
    
    1 - This is our world
    
    Susan Smith lies about a black man carjacking her
    car and pleads for the safe return of her children.  She finally
    cracks and leads investigators to the lake where her children
    are found drowned strapped in the car.
    
    The prosecutor worries about the cost of the trial, and considers a
    plea bargain - to save money, and to save the community from the
    horrible horrible experience of a death penalty trial.
    
    ------
    
    2 - This is not our world
    
    Susan Smith told the truth about a black man carjacking her car.
    Investigators find the man, and he leads them to the lake where
    her children are found drowned strapped in the car.
    
    The prosecutor worries about the cost of the trial, and considers a
    plea bargain - to save money, and to save the community from the
    horrible horrible experience of a death penalty trial.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .181 - great thought game

Apples and oranges.  An apples-to-apples comparison would be a black
Susan Smith.

    I find myself speechless at your rationalization.
    
    								-mr. bill

mr. bill speechless?  It boggles the mind...

	rationalization?  where?

    
    Would this black Susan Smith have had to accuse a white carjacker?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Has anyone here who previously felt that Susan Smith should receive
    the death penalty changed their mind? No? Then STFU.
    
    -b

    what is stfu?

    A non-recognizable obscenity.

>     what is stfu?

Shut The ____ Up

	shut the eff up - but i see no reason why brian should be 
	telling anyone to - there's an issue about whether or not
	she'll be plea bargaining - why not discuss that?  sheesh.

	and i agree with gerald that it was an apples-to-oranges
	comparison.

    Well, I'll tell you why. Despite the fact that many people in
    here who would normally be counted as "conservative" have
    insisted that she should receive the death penalty, the race
    issue continues to get wagged about like one of us said "oh,
    she's white, well in that case slap her wrist." The punishment
    befitting the crime is death. Period. Doesn't matter who did
    it.
    
    The prosecutor would _appear_ to be wrong in making a plea
    bargain, but then again, none of us are he/she/it. So to
    debate their motive is futile, to accuse them of racism is
    futile and to attempt to defend them in their perceived
    racism is also futile. We should get *off* of the race issue
    in this case! Want to argue about whether plea bargains are
    good or bad? Fine. Want to argue about the death penalty?
    Fine. But this endless loop of "he/she/them/us are racists...
    no him/she/them/us are not... yes he/she/them/us is...
    blah blah blah.." is noise!!!!
    
    -b

    Re: .181
    
    It's not quite the same.  A carjacker would have a much harder time
    developing a diminished capacity plea.  Also, I think a prosecutor
    would be more likely to go after a carjacker -- carjacking, in and of
    itself, establishes this person as a predatory criminal, the sort that
    prosecutors like to use to show how tough they are on crime.

	.194  sez you

   <<< Note 37.187 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
                            -< And what color car? >-

    
>    Would this black Susan Smith have had to accuse a white carjacker?
    
    Tawana.
    
    

re:.194

>Despite the fact that many people in
>here who would normally be counted as "conservative" have
>insisted that she should receive the death penalty, the race
>issue continues to get wagged about 

Oh you mean like the "Race and Crime" Topic? Or like several hundred
replies I see in here on a regular basis?

>like one of us said "oh, she's white, well in that case slap her wrist."

No. 

Like the _prosecutor_ said (as I perceive it). The point of my .168
(and as Doc said) is the issue of fair application of the law. While a lot
of people (conservatives included) see turnstyle justice rampant, a lot of
people choose _not_ to see disproportionate "justice" ("just us") meted
out.

>The punishment befitting the crime is death. Period. Doesn't matter who did
>it.

Statistics say otherwise. mr. bill's .181 was very clear to me. By the way,
I'm not pronouncing a sentence for Ms. Smith...she's entitled to trial and
all the features the criminal justice system allows...I'm just commenting
on the motives as expressed by the prosecutor. I think they are thinly
veiled forms of bias.

>So to debate their motive is futile, to accuse them of racism is
>futile and to attempt to defend them in their perceived
>racism is also futile. 

We are in agreement in so far as the "futility" is concerned. Although,
future directions of this nature may lead to other futile consequences
such as civil unrest. But an ever so slight couunter-balance of opinion
is good for the 'box, n'est ce pas? Keeps things from getting boring.

>We should get *off* of the race issue in this case! 

Well I was...until I heard this. Then I dropped into "Offended" mode.

>But this endless loop of "he/she/them/us are racists...
>no him/she/them/us are not... yes he/she/them/us is...
>blah blah blah.." is noise!!!!

Obviously by current events still very relevant.

    Oh boys... look what I got !
    
    
    Will you people quit with the black/white thing it's complete Bull
    and is P!@@ing me ooooff.

    Why does it feel awful to snarf in a topic like this?

                     But not *Really* awful, eh Nance? :-)

    
    Great...
    
    NASAU::GUILLERMO goes off on a wild-### tangent and everyone follows
    along as if it really happened....
    
    Okay... how's about I start one that's just as applicable...
    
    Suppose it was a half-chicano/half-Polack woman??
    
    
    
    
     Probably woulda hung her right there....
    

    
>>    NASAU::GUILLERMO goes off on a wild-### tangent and everyone follows
>>    along as if it really happened....

	yeah, heaven forbid anyone should discuss a hypothetical
	situation in the 'box, huh?  

    
    
    <------
    
    That happens much?????
    

    The prosecutor in the Susan Smith case _will_ seek the death penalty.
    
    The comments previously attributed to the prosecutor (not wanting
    to put the people through the trauma of a death penalty case) were
    made by some other local official. (mayor perhaps?)
    
    -b

> made by some other local official. 

I later found out it was the sheriff who originally arrested her. 

So either I heard the report wrong or they reported wrong. The sentiment
was still expressed and I opined.

I know one thing. Krawiecki seems to be unable to stand even an intimation
that any discrimination or bias occurs. Especially from the group that s'posed
to be "the good guys".

And her trial has yet to be concluded. It ain't over  'til it's over.

    
    RE: .206
    
    Just plain old "Krawiecki" Brandon? Not even a "Mr." like you did in
    e-mail to me awhile back? 
    
     Tsk... tsk...
    
     btw...
    
    >I know one thing. Krawiecki seems to be unable to stand even an
    >intimation
    
    
      You're wrong (par for the course)....
    
     I do understand there's bias and bigotry... especially down there...
    
    What I do not "stand" for is the speculatory spin that's put on to...
    'possibly'.. perhaps'.... 'maybe'... 'it seems'.... tec. ad naseum
    
    
    and yours was a perfect example....
    
    ...."if it were a black blah blah blah.... things would have been blah
    blah blah..."
    
      If it "seemed" like I was unable to stand even an intimation of bias,
    then likewise, it "seemed" to me that you were looking for bias that
    might not even be there.... 
    
      Shall we call it a draw??
    

I didn't even know we were on a first name basis...Andy. Sorry if using your
last name alone qualified as a slight in your eyes...it certainly was not
intended as such.  In a forum such as this I'm flexible to a point. Perhaps
I should have just preceded it with "::".

I don't like a lot of things I see...but they're there.

As to your objections regarding 'speculatory spins'...nothing speculatory
in my string, I just draw conclusions from observation. They may be
opinion or they may in fact be objective fact. Surely you don't think I have
any diminished capacity to interpret and extrapolate...just because I'm
not...mainstream. 

    
    Brandon,
    
      My comment about 'speculatory spins' was not directed soley at you. 
    
    If I recall, your statement started something like... "If it had
    been..."  
    
      Do you realy believe that to be "objective fact"?

    fry the <r.o>

    Is murderer now considered a recognisable obscenity?

    Guffaw

    I don't think we should fry her.  It would be too easy an out.  Instead
    I think a life of building a monument to murdered children (out of some
    very heavy rock) and quiet contemplation would be a more viscious
    punishment.
    
    meg

    We're not trying to be vicious.

    Perhaps you should stick to speaking for yourself.  I'm not at all
    convinced your attitude is universal to the participants.

    
    
    	get 'im Chels, get 'im! ;*)
    
    
    

    As someone else mentioned, the prosecutor has said he will seek
    the death penalty.  HER lawyer may attempt a plea bargain, but there
    is nothing that says the prosecutor has to accept/agree to it.
    
    Believe me, people in S.C. (both black and white) have little
    sympathy for Susan Smith.  After the prosecutor made his announcement,
    a local commented to a TV person that he didn't care WHY she killed
    her kids; she did it, she confessed and she ought to pay the ultimate
    penalty.
    
    

      The case of Susan Smith is finding many adherents to the
      notion that the greatest punishment for any wrongdoing 
      is inherent.  That a revelation of one's own evil and the
      corresponding guilt that always follows is the greatest
      punishment there can be.
    

    .218
    
    somebody'e been reading too much dostoevsky.

      Actually, I never read Dosteovsky!  Maybe we're 'kindred
      spirits' or something.

    
    I admit I haven't finished _Crime And Punishment_, although I got about
    4/5 through it.  It's just one of those books that's hard to pick up
    8^/.
                               				

    don't you mean one of those books that are hard not to put down,
    mz_deb?

    
    .223
    
    Yes, that too, thank you Gilligan 8^).

  The judge in the Susan Smith trial has asked that a memorial to Susan Smith's
children be delayed until after the trial so that it will not create prejudice
against the defendant. The people building the monument have agreed to wait.

  The Susan Smith trial has been set for July. That one should be starting up
just about the time the O.J. trial ends. 

  George

    
    So the chances are very good that, maybe in a year or two, Susan
    Smith will be on death row awaiting electrocution, and OJ will
    be back in Naked Gun movies, making exercise tapes, and doing 
    whatever.

  That's where the smart money would be.

  George

    
    and once again.. justice will prevail...
    
    I wonder if whites will riot after the verdict???
    

  They will if she gets acquitted.

  George

    
    Will they riot if OJ gets acquitted??
    

  If O.J. gets acquitted I would guess that there will be lots of criticism from
the people who normally speak out against spousal abuse. There will be some from
lar'en order types and pro victim groups but not as much since those people
tend to sympathize somewhat with O.J. 

  George

    .229
    White people won`t riot if either one of them (Smith or Simpson) gets
    off because there isn`t the comradeship in the white ranks. 

  Well surprise, surprise. Court records just released now seem to be saying
that Susan Smith was abused by her step father. Supposedly there were no
charges but the family was required to undergo counseling.

  What do you bet we get to hear the battered woman defense? Post traumatic
stress syndrome and so forth.

  George

    I'm no in the mood to re-read this string, but if I remember, George,
    one of your complaints in this topic was the willingness of folks to
    string this woman up/assumption of guilt/the alleged thing.
    
    So, let me get this straight.  Susan Smith was abused by her step-
    father?  Is this proven or just an allegation?
    
    Aside from that nit, what is your point?  Do you agree with the posited
    defenses, such as battered woman/post traumatic stress?  If the above
    allegation is true, and it is proven that Ms. Smith did willfully
    murder her children, do you feel that it is mitigated by the fact that
    she may have been abused?  What kind of abuse did she allegedly suffer?
    
    Inquiring minds and all.
    
    Christine

    She was no doubt spanked.
    
    I can bravely say this because Kit has left us.  8^)

Well, ya know, five'll getcha ten.

    Also heard on the news last night that the citizens didn`t care if she
    was abused.

    Makes no diff to me.  She killed her boys!	

RE            <<< Note 37.235 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>

>    So, let me get this straight.  Susan Smith was abused by her step-
>    father?  Is this proven or just an allegation?

  Neither. We are not talking about charges being brought against Susan Smith's
stepfather so the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply. The
issue here is what may or may not be used by the defense in the trial of Susan
Smith herself. 
    
>If the above
>    allegation is true, and it is proven that Ms. Smith did willfully
>    murder her children, do you feel that it is mitigated by the fact that
>    she may have been abused?  What kind of abuse did she allegedly suffer?

  According to court records her father was accused of a milder form of sexual
abuse against Smith and a deal was made in which the family went to counseling
rather than him being prosecuted. 

  As to whether it results in mitigating circumstances, that's for the jury
to decide if that defense is used. If her confession is correct and Smith did
in fact commit homicide against the two children then the determination as
to whether that is murder or manslaughter and if murder what level of murder
and the impact of mitigating or aggravating circumstances depends mostly on
premeditation and her state of mind at the time she committed the crime.

  To get the death penalty it will be the burden of the state to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that she qualifies for 1st degree murder and not some lesser
level of homicide. It would seem that things like evidence of premeditation and
possible post traumatic stress syndrome would go into that decision.

  We will have to hear the evidence before we can make any type of informed
judgment ourselves. 

  George

RE         <<< Note 37.239 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    Makes no diff to me.  She killed her boys!	

  She allegedly killed her boys.

  George

    I hate to sound harsh, but IMHO, the only way the abuse from the
    stepfather/father would be relevant is if one of them took her
    out to that lake when she was a child and held her head under the
    water for great lengths of time.
    
    Ptui!!
    
    

>  What do you bet we get to hear the battered woman defense?

A number of noters think she should be fried.  Should she be battered first,
or just dusted with flour?

RE   <<< Note 37.243 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>A number of noters think she should be fried.  Should she be battered first,
>or just dusted with flour?

  It appears she's already been battered. Or at the very least molested.

  George

    it also appears that her brain has been fried...
    
    Chip

    Abuse is no excuse for murder.  When will the victim-defense mentality
    end?  It's getting to the point that no one is really responsible for
    their own behavior...it's always *someone else's* fault.
    
    Not good.

RE                    <<< Note 37.246 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    Abuse is no excuse for murder.  When will the victim-defense mentality
>    end?  It's getting to the point that no one is really responsible for
>    their own behavior...it's always *someone else's* fault.
    
  It seems there are two extremes here, one favored by liberals and one favored
by conservatives. 

  Liberals favor the victim-defense extreme that you mention and feel that no
one is to blame. 

  Conservatives favor the scape goat extreme and like to tie things up in a
neat package blaming everything on one person who then gets the maximum penalty
allowed by law. 

  Most likely the truth is somewhere in between and while some are more
responsible than others, they are not the only ones responsible for what has
taken place. 

  George

    [Insert picture here of me using the index finger of my right
    hand to  elicit a gag reflex.]
    
    She was {sniff sniff} abused. Awwwwwwww! No wonder she stood
    there and watched as her children struggled to get out of their
    car seats as the car went under. She was {sniff sniff} abused.
    
    Fortunately, no one with even half a brain takes George or
    people who think like him seriously, so there's really no point
    in wasting compute cycles on any of them. The trial will go
    forth, the result will almost certainly be a finding of guilt,
    she will most likely receive the death penalty, she will
    be executed in approximately 10 years, and George will still
    lack a clue. After all, some things are inevitable.
    
    -b

    >She allegedly killed her boys.
      
    She ADMITTEDLY killed her boys.
    
    DougO

RE      <<< Note 37.248 by MPGS::MARKEY "Calm down: it's only 1s and 0s" >>>

>    Fortunately, no one with even half a brain takes George or
>    people who think like him seriously, so there's really no point
>    in wasting compute cycles on any of them. 

  Well not really. The principles of common law on which I base my beliefs
on how the judicial system should operate have been around for the better
part of a millennium.

  George

    
    <--------
    
    Including copping a plea??
    

  Plea bargaining has been around for quite some time and is a good idea.

  Since pleas are most often done when the evidence in a case is questionable,
they tend to result in more criminals being put in jail for moderate length
sentences rather than some getting very long sentences while others go free
after an acquittal.

  George

    George,
    
    Not ALL conversatives believe everything can be wrapped up in one
    neat package.
    
    As I said in the string on the Menendez brothers; IF the abuse 
    charges can be substantiated then I would have no problem with this
    factor be used when deciding the sentence.  But I do not believe
    people should be allowed to walk away from murder charges without
    serving prison sentences unless it could be PROVEN that they killed
    the abuser in self-defense.
    
    This type defense might be valid in a few (probably very few) cases,
    but it will be used to excess and then there will be a back-lash.
    
    In this case I can't see what "alleged" sexual abuse committed by
    Susan's father and/or step-father has to do with her standing and
    watching an automobile sink into a lake while her 2 young sons
    drowned.  If Susan Smith was charged with sexually abusing her sons
    I would say an argument could be made for a connection, but this
    just doesn't wash.
    
    

    
    RE: .252
    
    > Since pleas are most often done when the evidence in a case is
    >questionable,
    
    
     Is that the case today, or is it because the prosecution doesn't have
    the resources and/or wherewithal to carry through the original
    indictement?

RE    <<< Note 37.253 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Not ALL conversatives believe everything can be wrapped up in one
>    neat package.

  I realize that. I generally use the "all conservatives" in response to someone
who has just flamed on about "all liberals". I'll try not to do that in the
future but I doubt they will extend me the same courtesy.
    
>    In this case I can't see what "alleged" sexual abuse committed by
>    Susan's father and/or step-father has to do with her standing and
>    watching an automobile sink into a lake while her 2 young sons
>    drowned.  If Susan Smith was charged with sexually abusing her sons
>    I would say an argument could be made for a connection, but this
>    just doesn't wash.
    
  So fine, I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is that if she wants
to use this as her defense she should be allowed to do so and it should be
up to the jury to decide if they accept it or not.

  George

RE    <<< Note 37.254 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     Is that the case today, or is it because the prosecution doesn't have
>    the resources and/or wherewithal to carry through the original
>    indictement?

  It's been my observation that plea are generally entered based on the quality
of evidence and uncertainty on the part of both the prosecution and the
defendant as to the likely outcome of a trial. 

  Although shortages of lawyers working in the D.A.'s office is a problem. And
it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better since many supporters of
the party in power at the national level seem to have tremendous disrespect for
prosecutors and even talk about how the world would be a better place if they
were all killed.

  George

    George,
    
    I agree that plea bargains are made when the prosecution may feel
    some of its evidence is questionable; but Susan confessed.   They
    have the confession written in her hand; why plea bargain?
    
    Don't expect the feelings of sympathy and doubt as have been dis-
    played toward OJ being applied to Susan.  People are still furious
    at her duplicity; no mention is ever made of her up-coming trial
    without a replay of her plea for the kidnapper to return her sons.
    
    I've lived in the south for 25+ years; juries can be harsh but they
    don't hand down the death penalty for a woman easily.  SS might
    prove to be an exception.
    
    

RE    <<< Note 37.257 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I agree that plea bargains are made when the prosecution may feel
>    some of its evidence is questionable; but Susan confessed.   They
>    have the confession written in her hand; why plea bargain?

  Who said anything about a plea bargain in this case?
    
>    Don't expect the feelings of sympathy and doubt as have been dis-
>    played toward OJ being applied to Susan.  People are still furious
>    at her duplicity; no mention is ever made of her up-coming trial
>    without a replay of her plea for the kidnapper to return her sons.

  Who said anything about sympathy in this case?
    
>    I've lived in the south for 25+ years; juries can be harsh but they
>    don't hand down the death penalty for a woman easily.  SS might
>    prove to be an exception.
    
  ... and maybe not. Remember, this is going to be a jury made up of people who
have not formed an opinion about this case as to her guilt or innocence and
it's an entirely open question as to whether or not they ever her about her
"duplicity". 

  George

    George,
    
    How will this trial decide her guilt; she confessed!!
    
    

    It will decide whether she is responsible for her own actions. The fact
    that she perpetrated the crime notwithstanding. 

RE    <<< Note 37.259 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    George,
>    
>    How will this trial decide her guilt; she confessed!!
    
  How do you know she confessed? Were you in the room at the time? Did you
personally talk to a law enforcement official that was in the room at the time
(hearsay)? Or did you learn this through the press reporting on what some law
enforcement official told them (i.e. 2nd level hearsay) 

  She allegedly confessed. At the trial IF that confession is deemed to be
admissible then it will be presented to the jury, the defense will have an
opportunity to challenge it, and the jury may use that and other evidence
to decide if she is in fact guilty.

  George

    -1 everyone's invited to jump on George's alleged merry-go-round
       one more time...
    
    
       Chip

Re                    <<< Note 37.262 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    -1 everyone's invited to jump on George's alleged merry-go-round
>       one more time...
    
  It's not my "alleged merry-go-round". The concept of the presumption of
innocence prior to trial has been a part of common law for centuries.

  George

    -1 puleeze... they showed the letter.
    
       Chip

RE                    <<< Note 37.264 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    -1 puleeze... they showed the letter.
    
  Who's "they" and who did "they" show it to?

  George

    -1 please catch up...
    
       Chip

    
    RE: -1 please catch up...
    
    If he does, it will be allegedly.

    -1 Bwahahahahahahahaha...

  You guys are a riot. You are basically saying that you want to do away with
freedom and justice by replacing it with martial law and summary judgment and
then you laugh at me because I keep reminding you about the presumption of
innocence and the right to a fair trial.

  But them I'm sure that the Nazi's laughed at the Jews when they questioned
the very system of summary judgment that you seem to be supporting.

  Ba, Ha, Ha, you guys sure are a riot,
  George

    
    You, George, are a riot.  What you want is for all criminals to go
    free, but only after your girlfriend takes all our money getting
    them off.
    
    Any system involving infinite loops is unstable.  Our legal system
    does.  Unless it is possible to reach closure on a crime, the system
    is broken.
    
      bb

    I think all defense lawyers oughtta be public servants and make do on
    $30k/yr.

RE                      <<< Note 37.270 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    You, George, are a riot.  What you want is for all criminals to go
>    free, but only after your girlfriend takes all our money getting
>    them off.

  No, I want to preserve Constitutional protections of the innocent and
retain our system of justice that prevents the state from violating the
civil liberties of the citizens.
    
>    Any system involving infinite loops is unstable.  Our legal system
>    does.  Unless it is possible to reach closure on a crime, the system
>    is broken.
    
  Nearly one million people incarcerated in jails and prisons around the
country and several executions a year are evidence enough that there are no
infinite loops in the judicial system. I see no reason to turn our nation
into a police state by slanting our rules of Race Judicata toward summary
judgment.

  George

    Fine George.  How do you feel about exile?  I'm all for it.
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 37.273 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN 

>"You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

  ... and created an economic power that is the envy of the world

>    Fine George.  How do you feel about exile?  I'm all for it.
    
  Fine, have a nice trip.

  George

    
    That would be...
    
    
    and created an economic power that is the "ALLEGED" envy of the world

    I'm not happy with this business of "not guilty by reason of mental
    defect."  It means that even though someone did something, they didn't
    _legally_ do something, which is weird.  They should ask the jury, "Did
    the defendant commit this act?"  The jury says yes or no.  Then they
    should ask the jury, "Do any factors apply?"  The jury says that the 
    person was acting in self-defense, or planned the murder in advance, or 
    was incapable of distinguishing between wrong and right.  It's the
    factors which determine the sentencing guidelines.
    
    This way, you've got a statement that so-and-so did such-and-such,
    which is more of a comfort to bereaved folks than a statement that no
    one murdered your loved one.

    George:
    
    I didn't mean you!!!!!  I meant criminals...send them off to an obscure
    part of the world.  Then we won't have a police state my friend cuz all
    the bad element will be out of here.  Better than frying people eh?
    
    George, you take exception to my set personal?  Listen George,
    Roosevelt was a smart communist, Truman was a dope, the economy
    flourished under Eisenhower, Kennedy...no comment, LBJ...well
    intentioned social engineer and lousy foreign policy president,
    Nixon...the best foreign policy president of the twentieth century,
    Ford...signed lowest budgets in this era, Carter...domestic policy dolt
    but nice guy, Reagan...popularity exceeds any of your ilk,
    Bush...couldn't deal with socialist idjits in congress, Clinton,
    embarrassment to the presidency.  Based on this professional analysis,
    it would appear that the only two times the economy really flourished
    was under the Eisenhower administration and the Reagan administration. 
    Guess who was running congress at the time George.  Hint...you don't
    like them!
    
    -Jack

RE         <<< Note 37.277 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    I didn't mean you!!!!!  I meant criminals...send them off to an obscure
>    part of the world.  Then we won't have a police state my friend cuz all
>    the bad element will be out of here.  Better than frying people eh?

  Where would you send them? It's not likely that many countries would gladly
except our rejects. For a time Australia was used for this sort of thing by
Great Britain but I doubt if they do it any more. 
    
>    George, you take exception to my set personal?  Listen George,
>    Roosevelt was a smart communist, 

  When I see things like this I try to decide if you are just demonstrating
ignorance or if you are so emotional about Democrats that you just can't
think straight. That's ludicrous.

  First of all are you saying that Roosevelt was a theoretical communist like
Marx or a practical communist like Lennin? I say he was neither. Under Marxism
there is no government at all. The Aristocracy would be eliminated and the
proletariat then holds all things on common (hence "communism"). Do you ever
recall F.D.R. calling for the abolishment of the government?

  Lennin seemed to have a different approach in which all private ownership
of property or business was taken over by the state. No major Democrat to my
knowledge has ever suggested that the United States nationalize all business.
Yes they believe in regulation but that's a far cry from outright ownership.

>or
>a
>>Truman was a dope, the economy
>    flourished under Eisenhower, Kennedy...no comment, LBJ...well
>    intentioned social engineer and lousy foreign policy president,
>    Nixon...the best foreign policy president of the twentieth century,
>    Ford...signed lowest budgets in this era, Carter...domestic policy dolt
>    but nice guy, Reagan...popularity exceeds any of your ilk,
>    Bush...couldn't deal with socialist idjits in congress, Clinton,
>    embarrassment to the presidency.  

  Now there some revisionist history. Nice work. But through it all the
Democrats had control of congress and if you look at the position of the United
States back in 1932 when the Democrats took over Congress and look at where we
are now it seems we've done very well. Back in 1932 we were one of several
large powers, now we are the only super power in the world and our national
alone is a trade block that matches any other trade block in the world. 

>Based on this professional analysis,
>    it would appear that the only two times the economy really flourished
>    was under the Eisenhower administration and the Reagan administration. 
>    Guess who was running congress at the time George.  Hint...you don't
>    like them!
    
  Again revisionism. There was a Recession and an economic slump around the '53
and '54 time frame. The economic growth came a bit later once the Democrats had
taken over Congress again. As for Reagonomics, I would hardly call that a
success. It was a time when we ran up a deficit who's interest payments are now
one of the largest items on our budget. 

  George

    George,
    
    You seem to be the only person who did not see the confession written
    out in Smith's handwriting.  I'm sorry, the subject of her guilt is
    moot.  It is not the duty of the State to prove her guilty at this
    point.  As other's have pointed out, a trial may determine mitigating
    circumstances that might affect Smith's sentence, but the best de-
    fense lawyer in the world couldn't convince anyone that Smith didn't
    kill her sons now.
    
    Gee, where were you when Colin Ferguson needed you? :-)
    

Re    <<< Note 37.279 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    You seem to be the only person who did not see the confession written
>    out in Smith's handwriting.  I'm sorry, the subject of her guilt is
>    moot.  It is not the duty of the State to prove her guilty at this
>    point.  

  Her guilt is moot? 

  If any trial judge instructed the jury that her guilt was moot, that would be
reversible error in any jurisdiction in the nation. Any conviction would be
dead on arrival at the first appeals court it hit even in the most conservative
districts.

  Her guilt is moot. And I thought I had heard it all.

  George

    OK George, I give up.  She wrote the confession for grins and
    giggles.
    
    Innocent people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit (and I
    didn't see any physical signs that the confession had been beaten
    out of her).
    
    

    .281
    
    > Innocent people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit
    
    not necessarily true.  people have been known to confess in order to
    protect the real perp, who is usually a lover or other loved one.

RE    <<< Note 37.281 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Innocent people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit (and I
>    didn't see any physical signs that the confession had been beaten
>    out of her).
    
  Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but that has nothing to do with what we
were talking about before. You seem to be making the common mistake of
confusing actual guilt or innocence with the presumption of innocence granted
defendants in a criminal action. 

  Regardless of whether she did it or not and regardless of how good the
evidence might be, she is under U.S. Law guaranteed the presumption of
innocence at her trial and it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that she is guilty before she loses that presumption of
innocence. 

  That has been a stable of our system of justice since the Constitution was
written and predates our nation in common law by centuries. To say that the
presumption of innocence does not exist or that "her guilt is a moot point"
flies in the face of the most fundamental parts of not only our system of
justice but the system of justice as it has evolved for the better part of
this millennium.

  George

I agree with George here.  She confessed to killing her kids, but until the
evidence is presented to a jury and the jury finds her guilty, she can not
be punished.

Bob

    	Yeah, Bob, but can *we* consider her guilty because of the
    	confession?  That's all that's really been said here.  Not
    	that she can be punished (yet, until her day in court) but 
    	that we can consider her guilty.

RE      <<< Note 37.285 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Yeah, Bob, but can *we* consider her guilty because of the
>    	confession?  That's all that's really been said here.  Not
>    	that she can be punished (yet, until her day in court) but 
>    	that we can consider her guilty.

  You can consider her guilty if you don't like the perfume she wares. It's
a free country, consider her and everyone else what ever you like.

  But the state can't consider her guilty until she's had her day in court.

  George

    WE, bubbies, can consider her whatever the hell we like. WE
    are not the jury. WE have no connection to the case. WE can
    have a little fun with it if we want to, even if a certain
    someone else has an alleged hair across their derrier about
    it!
    
    -b

  No one ever said you couldn't.

  However when you start talking about having the state role her into a lake
then the presumption of innocence becomes relevant to the conversation.

  George

    
    "Susan, you're playing a lake in this scene..."

    Is she a watery tart?

    Is she a moistened bint?

    Oh brother, just heard on radio that a woman in LA is charged with
    throwing her 2 children off a freeway over-pass.  The baby died,
    the 3 year old is in critical condition.
    
    Relatives state the woman has a history of mental illness.
    
    

    Re: .288
    
    >No one ever said you couldn't.
    
    Well, we can't say she's guilty without having our notes "corrected"
    and it's getting pretty darned irritating, thank you very much.

    .292
    
    Wasn't overpass, it was bridge into a lake.  Then she jumped herself
    to commit suicide.  Somebody saw her which resulted in her and the
    oldest boy's rescue.  
    
    "She's told her husband and mother [or mil] that she didn't want either
    of the children it was too hard for her."
    
    The husband is on parole for wife abuse.

 It wasn't a lake, it was a river 

    River  Lake   Pond  BODY OF WATER! :-) :-)

    oh yeah, Husband reportedly dispondent... police were unable to
    question if he knew what led to the murder and attempted murder/suicide
    as of yesterday.  Did you hear any more information about "cause" on
    the radio?

RE            <<< Note 37.293 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Well, we can't say she's guilty without having our notes "corrected"
>    and it's getting pretty darned irritating, thank you very much.

  I think you'll notice that I expressed my opinion in those cases where
someone said something to the effect "since she's guilty she should be rolled
into a lake".

  I doubt that I ever criticized someone who said "I think she is guilty".

  The former seems to be advocating that the state think she is guilty without
a trial where as the latter is just an opinion.

  George

	.298
    
>  I doubt that I ever criticized someone who said "I think she is guilty".

    	Really?  Or allegedly...

    It's just a farcical aquatic ceremony.

    ... will Esther Williams attend?

        
   Just catching up on soapbox after my vacation and I cone across this.
    
    
>      ================================================================================
>Note 37.281                 Susan Smith Murders Sons                  281 of 301
>DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround"    8 lines  24-FEB-1995 14:37
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    OK George, I give up.  She wrote the confession for grins and
>    giggles.
    
>    Innocent people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit (and I
>    didn't see any physical signs that the confession had been beaten
>    out of her).
    
 	That last paragraph is interesting. I have watched televised
    confessions of American and British officers in the Gulf War confessing
    to war "crimes" agains Iraq. Same with Vietnam. Also There are often 
    "crazies" who confess to any spectacular crime, and as someone
    mentioned, some people will confess to protect a loved one. I'm sure we
    could come up with other catagories of false or forced confessions if
    we tried. 
    
    	I believe she killed her sons and I believe the confession is real
    and unforced, but to suggest the the state consider her guilt a MOOT
    POINT is crazy. 
    
    	
    							S.R.   
    	

    Susan Smith's lawyer lost an attempt to keep his notice of intent to
    mount a mental illness defense under seal yesterday. South Carolina law
    requires that the defense notify the prosecution if a mental illness
    defense will be employed. The defense contended that justice would be
    best served if that notice could be kept from the public until the
    start of the trial, arguing that potential jurors would be tainted by
    the publicity. The motion was denied, and the notification was given.
    Preliminary reports indicate the possibility of use of the "guilty but
    mentally ill" plea, likely an attempt to avoid the death penalty.

    Ito would've...
    
    Chip

    Steve,
    
    I'm not a court of law; the confession is handwritten, IMO her
    guilt is moot.  
    
    Our system of justice guarantees her a trial, fine.  Her lawyers
    can argue about circumstances that might play into determining her
    sentence, fine.  None of this alters the fact that she murdered
    her children.
    
    

RE    <<< Note 37.305 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I'm not a court of law; the confession is handwritten, IMO her
>    guilt is moot.  
    
  I think the problem is that you are using the wrong word and that is
creating confusion.

  Moot has two definitions, neither of which is correct the way you are using
it. Moot means "subject to debate or argument" or "without legal significance".
The 1st definition seems the opposite of the way you are using it, but the 2nd
is more common. That definition is usually used when an argument is no longer
necessary because the reason for arguing is gone. 

  The more common use of the word "moot" in this case would be if Susan Smith
died of a heart attack. Then her guilt would be moot since it would no longer
be something of legal significance.

  George

    	Re 305
    
    	No, if she murdered her children, and I believe she did, none of
    that changes that fact. I personally would find an abuse defense to
    compelling either if I were on a jury. I don't have any problem with
    you thinking she is guilty, especialy since I am making the same
    assumption. My main complaint is that in earlier notes you seemed to
    want the state to work under that same assumption, and there is the
    point that I disagree with. She did confess, true, but to dispense with
    a trial, she needs to plead guilty in court, then I would agree that
    there is no need for a trial. It isn't the police's function to
    determine guilt or innocence, even if a confession is made. They just
    gather the evidence, and that is all the confession is at this point,
    evidence. Damning evidence to be sure, but still just eveidence.
    
    
    							Steve R.

    It just amazes me, Susan Smith confessed to a heineous crime of
    strapping her children into their car seats, taking to them on the way
    to their death, the whole time, reinforcing their trust in her, she
    dumps them like common trash in a lake and confesses to it, she COULD
    be innocent, by everyone is ready to fry OJ....give me a break, is
    there some society pattern here..I guess OJ is innocent then until the
    court can find him guilty.
    

  Has there been someone who has said that Susan Smith has more of a right
to a fair trial than O.J.? If so I missed it.

  Both have a right to a fair trial. And O.J. is certainly getting his fair
trial, he's got the best team of defense lawyers ever assembled.

  George

    .307 Steve, OK I see where you are coming from.  I wasn't advocating
    that she be denied a trial, I just find all the comments about the
    presumption of innocence flies in the face of the facts as we know
    them.
    
    I'm curious though, why do you find it compelling that Susan Smith's
    alleged abuse as a child could be a possible explanation for 
    her actions now?  The defense is alluding to sexual abuse, how
    does that translate into strapping your kids into their car seats,
    releasing the car brakes and watching those children drown?
    
    I know statistics indicate that large numbers of abused become abusers
    as adults, but the abuse is consistent in patterns. This defense
    would make more sense if Susan Smith sexually abused her children
    before killing them (this has not been indicated).  For someone who
    is supposed to be as mentally ill/tortured as Susan Smith is alleged
    to be, she did one heckuva acting job for 9 days!!
    

RE    <<< Note 37.310 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I'm curious though, why do you find it compelling that Susan Smith's
>    alleged abuse as a child could be a possible explanation for 
>    her actions now?  The defense is alluding to sexual abuse, how
>    does that translate into strapping your kids into their car seats,
>    releasing the car brakes and watching those children drown?

  It could cause Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome which could be responsible for
later violent actions.

  Remember, once a jury decides that there is a homicide (an unlawful killing)
they then have to decide what level of homicide (murder 1, murder 2, voluntary
manslaughter, ...). Under Common Law the type of manslaughter depends on the
state of mind of the perpetrator at the time the crime was committed. That
being the case, any abuse leading to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome would be
relevant.

  George

    George,
    
    Oh dear, I was afraid you would come up with something like this :-(
    There still should be personal accountibility.  I suppose I could
    agree with life imprisonment, no chance for parole; but most states
    that do have a *Guilty, but Insane* verdict  usually allow for the
    perp to eventually be set free.
    
    Abuse is sick and sad, but there are still many victims of such
    abuse who do not abuse/murder their own children and most do not
    turn into serial killers (I'm not referring to SS as a serial
    killer).
    
    The scenarios you mentioned are becoming the rule, rather than
    exception.  I'm sorry, IMO this perverts the justice system.
    
    

RE    <<< Note 37.312 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Oh dear, I was afraid you would come up with something like this :-(
>    There still should be personal accountability.  

  Everyone agrees that there should be personal accountability. The question
is, which persons should be held accountable? If someone abuses a child then
that child grows up and commits violent acts, should the abuser not be held
accountable? Should the grown child become a scapegoat and take all the blame?

>    Abuse is sick and sad, but there are still many victims of such
>    abuse who do not abuse/murder their own children and most do not
>    turn into serial killers (I'm not referring to SS as a serial
>    killer).

  There are people who are shot and don't die but we don't use that as an
excuse to let off someone who shoots and kills their victim. Some people do die
as a result of being shot while others do not. Some children do grow up and
become violent as a result of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome while others do
not. 

  How should it be handled in this case? That's for the jury to decide. That's
why we keep saying she has a right to a fair trial.

>    The scenarios you mentioned are becoming the rule, rather than
>    exception.  I'm sorry, IMO this perverts the justice system.
    
  Or so the press would have you believe. Perhaps it is the rule in high
profile cases. It's not clear that it is the rule in other cases. 

  George

    George,
    
    In many cases, the "original" abusers are long gone or deceased; I
    think if SS's abuser were deceased it still most unrealistic to say
    "well, he started it, but he's no longer with us and we CAN'T hold
    Susan accountable"...... Ptui!!!!
    
    Come on, I'll agree that the abuse has left her with a personality
    that is one brick shy of a load, but this woman had enough presence
    of mind to concoct a fairly elaborate story to cover her own tracks;
    blame a black man and assist in drawing a composite picture.  She
    knows right from wrong.  She's a sad, pathetic individual, that
    doesn't mean she should go unpunished.
    
    FWIW, I agree with you .309  :-) :-)
    
    

    	Re. 310
    
    	If I was on the Jury, her lawyers would have to do some pretty fast 
    talking to convince me that prior sexual abuse ment she should be held
    accountable for what she did. I guess that means I would be likely to
    serve on the Jury though. I think one of the problems we have today is
    that in a trial, the defense will have an expert who will testify she
    was crazy as a loon and the prosocuters will have someone who say's she
    as sane as the judge. How is a layman supposed to decide. I have my
    opinions, but I'm certainly no doctor. How do you know which one to
    believe. Both witness's are going to say what there side wants them to
    or they wouldn't be put on the stand by there side. I think we need a
    better way to decide things when it is a sane/insane issue. I'm
    beginning to lose my faith in juries. I still believe in innocent until
    proven guilty, but maybe there's a better way?
    
    
    								S.R.

RE    <<< Note 37.314 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>                -< The Dream Team would definitely bomb in SC >-

  Don't be so sure. Remember, the "Dream Team" is stacked with lawyers who
understand that the only thing that matters is the jury. Their current defense
in the O.J. case is aimed at an L.A. County jury. Were they in S.C., their
tactics would no doubt be completely different.

  F.Lee Bailey's last big win was when he defended Lt Cali's commanding officer
a Captain Madina (sp?) at his Court Martial after the Mi Li massacre. In that
case the "jury" consisted of a board of Army officers and Bailey's tactics were
quite different. The Captain was acquitted. 

>    In many cases, the "original" abusers are long gone or deceased; I
>    think if SS's abuser were deceased it still most unrealistic to say
>    "well, he started it, but he's no longer with us and we CAN'T hold
>    Susan accountable"...... Ptui!!!!

  No one is saying Susan Smith should not be held accountable. The question's
are, what should she be held accountable for and who else should be held
accountable? 

  There seems to be a great deal of evidence emerging these days suggesting
that child abuse is a major cause of violent crime once the children reach
their teens or grow to be adults. I believe it is time to start considering if
the abusers should be held accountable for the crimes of those who they abuse
as children. 

  The law is already in place. Under Common Law a "Felony Murder" is an
unlawful death that results from the commission of a Felony. In cases like
this I believe an individual that may have abused the defendant should be
investigated and if there is evidence of abuse that should be taken to a grand
jury who could then indict the abuser for felony murder.

  George

Calley

My Lai

Abusers need to be held accountable for the crime of their abuse. Others
who commit crimes of their own, should be held accountable for them. The
concept that a perp is not accountable but that someone in their past is,
is a concept which never should have been allowed to be admissable in a
court of law.

  ... in your opinion.

  George

    .317
    Here, here.

RE         <<< Note 37.317 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Abusers need to be held accountable for the crime of their abuse. Others
>who commit crimes of their own, should be held accountable for them. The
>concept that a perp is not accountable but that someone in their past is,
>is a concept which never should have been allowed to be admissable in a
>court of law.

  One thing this overlooks is the reality of the fact that the human brain is a
neural network and all human thought is nothing more than the effects of the
operation of that computer between the ears.

  If someone shot a bullet into someone's chest, would you hold the victim
responsible for their injuries? After all, they should be able to heal, why
hold someone else responsible? 

  Well a neural network is just as much a piece of hardware as the plumbing in
someone's chest. And from what we know about the way neural networks work, they
are heavily influenced by information that they process. 

  If someone places a pre-teen neural net under a great deal of stress it's the
same as a device driver writing bits all over an operating system in kernel
mode. Who knows what's going to happen? All you know is that nothing good will
come of it.

  There is plenty of evidence that child abuse causes extreme trauma to the
neural net of a developing child and that is just as real as shooting someone
or stabbing them with a knife. If we don't hold people 100% responsible for
recovering from the trauma of a gunshot wound, why should we hold them 100%
responsible for the trauma of a devastating blow to their neural network? 

  Just as the shooter is held responsible for trauma to someone's chest and
the results of that trauma, a child abuser should be held responsible for the
trauma to their victim's neural net and the effects of that trauma.

  George

Typical bleeding heart liberal load of crap, George.

Taking the Susan Smith case as an example, whether or not she was abused
by her father, her father didn't plan to murder her kids, her father
didn't strap them in the back seat, and her father didn't push the
car off the shore. Plenty of people are abused and yet manage to live
a useful life without resorting to heinous crime. The guilt is on the
perpetrator. More judges and juries need to ignore this "I'm a victim
of trauma" mentality and put criminals in their place.

Device drivers, indeed . . . .

RE         <<< Note 37.321 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Typical bleeding heart liberal load of crap, George.

  Now there's a well reasoned response. In fact I'll go on to say, there's
a typical red neck conservative response. Care to debate the issues instead
of just slinging insults?

  As the joke goes in many highschool bands, if you can't play well, play
loud.

  Are you saying that child abuse does not have a traumatic impact on the
development of the neural network in a Child's brain?

  And what's this?

>Device drivers, indeed . . . .

  Are you saying that a renegade device driver running in kernel mode is not
capable of crashing an operating system? That's "liberal crap"? Funny, I saw
just that "liberal crap" happen once in our system and when we fixed the
bug in the device driver, they system stopped crashing ... um excuse me ...
"liberal crap" stopped happening.

  George

Drawing a parallel between a renegade device driver and a "traumatized
individual" is ridiculous, George. Device drivers lacked free will and
the ability to reason, not to mention a conscience, last time I checked.

If you care to cling to the analogy, feel free to do so, but please
be mindful of how silly it makes you appear.

    George, what would the explanantion be for all the non-child-killers
    who were abused?
    
    There is no validity to the argument, otherwise it would the rule
    (or at least a majority) not the exception.
    
    Chip
    
    

RE         <<< Note 37.323 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Drawing a parallel between a renegade device driver and a "traumatized
>individual" is ridiculous, George. Device drivers lacked free will and
>the ability to reason, not to mention a conscience, last time I checked.

  Well yes and no. It depends on how you define "free will".

  People make choices but the choices we make are the result of processing
in the neural network of our brain. Change someone's brain and you change
the way someone thinks. Neural nets are extremely sensitive to changes based
on experience, particularly at a young age.

  George

RE                    <<< Note 37.324 by 16134::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    George, what would the explanantion be for all the non-child-killers
>    who were abused?
    
  The fact that some people don't die from being shot in the chest does not
excuse someone who's victim does die from being shot in the chest.

  Likewise the fact that one neural net does not get traumatized by child abuse
does not forgive the fact that another one does resulting in a profound
difference in the way it processes data in the future (i.e. the way the person
thinks). 

  George 

    -1 you're clearly prancing through different orchards, George...

    
    If humans are automata, the legal system is superfluous.
    
    Remind me not to hire George to defend me if I'm arrested for murder.
    
      bb

  Notice the arguments, "dancing through orchards", "don't hire a lawyer", all
over the place. 

  So tell me how do you think the brain works? Where do you think thoughts come
from? 

  It makes sense to say that thoughts are the result of processing of the
neural net that makes up the brain. In fact not only do neurologists know this
to be true, they actually know what part of the brain handles what kind of
thought. 

  And you think this is all nonsense? No wonder you have to cast idle insults
in your defense, that's all you've got. 

  Welcome to the 20th century but don't get use to it, we're about to enter the
21st. 

  George 

    so, you're telling me that comparing physical tissue destruction (gun
    shot) is equivalent to someone who may develop psychologically based
    trauma is a level playing field? if this is an empty argument then
    call me the Grand Canyon...
    
    the brain works through a series of electrical impulses and precisely
    balanced chemical arrangements. if you wish to get more clinical go
    ahead. what molds someone's personality or behaviors are not fully
    understood and may never be (i'll bet not in our lifetime)...
    
    George, you should know this...why is the insanity defense so often
    unsuccessful? could it be the experts just don't have enough?
    
    Chip

    
    Man in chair : I'm not guilty because I was preprogrammed to kill.
    
    Executioner :  This is irrelevant.  I am preprogrammed to throw
                  the switch.
    
      bb

    all i know is someone musta done something nasty to george as a child
    and we are all his victims :-)))))))))))))))))))))))

    George,
    
    As pointed out before, Susan Smith's mind was functioning well
    enough to concoct an elaborate story.  She went to far as to
    work with a police sketch artist on the composite of the "suspect".
    She waxed dramatic for 9 days in front of TV cameras.  The fact
    that she made up the elaborate story indicates (to me at least) 
    that she knows right from wrong and was doing her darndest to cast
    suspicion elsewhere.
    
    Murder is aberant behavior by all standards; that fact shouldn't
    automatically lead to diminished capacity pleas etc.  I don't think
    that local DA would have indicated he intends to ask for the death
    penalty if there were valid indicators that SS was incapable of
    telling right from wrong.
    
    
    
    

RE                    <<< Note 37.330 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    so, you're telling me that comparing physical tissue destruction (gun
>    shot) is equivalent to someone who may develop psychologically based
>    trauma is a level playing field? if this is an empty argument then
>    call me the Grand Canyon...
    
  This reminds me of a Ken Olson story told to me by a friend out in Seattle.
Ken was known for being a hardware guy who never quite understood what software
was all about. 

  One time he was talking to the folks out in Seattle about the schedule for
their new system (I think it was the uVAX I). They agreed on the date the
hardware would be ready but someone suggested that the software might not be
ready in time. Ken said something to the fact that the software would not hold
the product up because unlike hardware, software was nothing and would be ready
when it was needed. 

  Same nonsense here. The body is made up of tissue which may or may not be
repaired after suffering trauma. Same with the brain. A neural net learns and
actually changes it's physical structure as it processes new data. If you force
someone to endure a traumatic incident, especially when their neural net is in
it's development stage, that can have a profound effect on the way all data is
processed by that neural net (i.e. the person thinks) from that point forward.

>    the brain works through a series of electrical impulses and precisely
>    balanced chemical arrangements. if you wish to get more clinical go
>    ahead. what molds someone's personality or behaviors are not fully
>    understood and may never be (i'll bet not in our lifetime)...

  It may not be fully understood but much is understood about the way the brain
functions. This is being studied both from the top down and the bottom up and
from a behavioral point of view.

  From the bottom up, neurologists have known for quite some time exactly what
is processed in various parts of the brain. There are many cases where the
brain has been injured, either temporarily or permanently, and people have lost
the ability to perform certain though processes. Comparing these injuries it's
obvious that certain parts of the brain perform certain functions. 

  As for top down study of the brain, there is a lot of work going on in the
field of cybernetics and the study of neural networks. Part of the field of
Artificial Intelligence involves building neural nets and studying how they are
built and how they function. 

  From the behavioral point of view, psychiatry and psychology are becoming
well developed areas of study.

  All of these areas are moving along and I believe that a working man made
neural net is not nearly as far off as you may believe. I expect that in the
next 20 years primitive neural nets will be used in areas like voice and speech
recognition and other forms of pattern recognition. 

  But one thing does seem to emerge from three areas, neurology (the study of
the brain itself), psychology (the study of human behavior), and cybernetics (as
applied to neural nets) and that is that neural nets are fundamentally and
deeply influenced by the data they process and that they undergo structural
change based on the data they process. This has a profound effect on the way
they process data (i.e. the person thinks) at a later date. 

  George

RE    <<< Note 37.333 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    As pointed out before, Susan Smith's mind was functioning well
>    enough to concoct an elaborate story.  She went to far as to
>    work with a police sketch artist on the composite of the "suspect".

  This means almost nothing. Brain injuries to neurology patients seem to
indicate that parts of the brain can function quite well even when other parts
are damaged or completely missing. 

  I heard of one case where a patient was injured and lost the part of the
brain which converts temporary memory into permanent memory. The patient could
remember normally that which had happened before his accident and he could learn
as well as anyone else and retain memories over a couple hours. However every
morning when he woke up he had to be told over again that he had been injured
and every morning his doctor had to reintroduce himself because the patient had
no ability to retain anything new that he had learned. 

  Now in many ways, this patients brain was working normally except for this one
malfunction. I can think of no evidence that the part of the brain that
controls the understanding between right and wrong is the same as the part of
the brain that would describe someone's face to a sketch artist. Those seem
like completely different functions and it's quite possible that if the brain
had suffered trauma one part would be effected more than another. 

  George 

> I can think of no evidence that the part of the brain that
> controls the understanding between right and wrong is the same as the part of
> the brain that would describe someone's face to a sketch artist.


But the interesting point was that she knew what she'd done was wrong enough
to bother lying about, George, not that she may not have understood her
actions as wrong.

    
    Well, I also better remember not to call George for brain surgery
    either.
    
    But none of this matters unless you argue against all punishment ever.
    Did she do it ?  Yes.  Did she know it was wrong ? Yes.  Was it an
    unbelievably heartless, brutal thing, involving more than one person,
    neither of whom ever did anything to her ?  Yes.  Did she rate to
    profit in her own life if she escaped detection ?  Yes.  Should she
    fry ?  If anybody should, she should.
    
      bb

  Interesting the use of the term "amen" in support of someone who wants
to do something about as anti Christian as killing a living person and
failing to turn the other cheek.

  Of course we often see that in the "religious right".

  George

         <<< Note 37.336 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>But the interesting point was that she knew what she'd done was wrong enough
>to bother lying about, George, not that she may not have understood her
>actions as wrong.

  Well maybe. And maybe she had become delusional and believed her own story.
How do you know for sure without doing a Vulcan mind meld?

  George

    
    
    Pretty convenient delusional state. Let's see....
    
    	Abuse in childhood causes trauma which causes her to kill her kids.
        Killing her kids causes trauma which causes her to recall fictional
    story as the truth.
    	Police and media attention causes trauma which cuases her to
    confess.
    
    Are the neural nets switching back and forth or what?
    
    ed 

>  Interesting the use of the term "amen" in support of someone who wants
>to do something about as anti Christian as killing a living person and
>failing to turn the other cheek.

>  Of course we often see that in the "religious right".

 > George
    
    Amen means "so be it".  
    
    I'm always amused when a non-Christian interprets Christian theology.
    
    jeff

  I was just reading this past weekend an article about Darwin and Huxley and
how they were subject to ridicule for Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species"
which suggested that man and apes descended from a common species. At least
that's an improvement over the problems faced by scientists like Galileo when
who actually risked death when challenging long held folk lore or religious
beliefs. 

  The brain is a computer, a neural net to be precise, and like any computer
the results of it's processing (i.e. human thought) is nothing more than a
function of the operation of that neural net. What is typed here is output from
my neural net and it's currently being read as input to your neural net where
it will be processed once again. 

  Depending on deviations in someone's neural net they can either become ill or
they can exhibit behavior that someone has decided is "wrong". 

  I've been working in software long enough to know that disasters happen as a
result of software errors and I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest
that child abuse can do as much to damage a developing neural net as a physical
injury to the brain itself. 

  Now if you don't want to believe that then fine. Perhaps you don't believe
in the theory of evolution either. In any case I guess I won't see you if I
am ever vacationing in Europe. No doubt you will not be there due to your fear
of sailing off the end of the earth.

  George

>>In any case I guess I won't see you if I
>>am ever vacationing in Europe. No doubt you will not be there due to your fear
>>of sailing off the end of the earth.

	this is totally absurd.  everybody knows that the end of the earth
	is on the other side of Europe.

    George, give it a rest, puuuuullllleeeeezzzzzzeeeeee!  You're giving
    me a brain-ache!!
    
    

    
    Apparently, George's neural net doesn't come with a terminator.
    

    ... as in Lady Chatterly's Lover, one wonders??  (and need I say more?)
    

    ... thanks for the disertation, George (however unsolicited it may have
    been). 
    
    no one argued that abuse can't significantly mold an individual's
    behavior later in life. it appears you just felt a need to display
    some experise in that space (my major). your comparison still stands
    as ridiculous. and... while neurologists may know "some" of the locals
    that govern certain capacities/functions, there is limited knowledge
    of h-o-w the info is processed.
    
    i'm done... lobotomy at 11:00...
    
    Chip 

    I say kill her and let God decide. He`s suppose to be pretty good at
    those things. Should stop a lot of quibbling here...as in the O.J.
    case.

    
    Well I gotta admit that George has changed my mind.
    I now think SS should be found not guilty and given all the help
    possible toward getting her life back in order.
    
    Same with OJ, a battered and abused man if I ever saw one.
    
    As for Heidi Fleiss, she should rot in jail.

    � I say kill her and let God decide. 
    
    How nice. 
    I doubt that God will be thankful your gratious offer. After *you* have
    made the decision to terminate her life. 
    
    Heiko

    .352
    Well that would be God's problem wouldn`t it? I though he could handle
    all of this, I mean, after all he/she is God. I wouldn`t mind pulling
    the trigger for her or O.J. She more than he at this point.

    No it would be your problem, unless you rely on being forgiven for your
    pompous act of declaring someone else's life unworthy.

    .354
    No problem here. She is the one who made her life unworthy not I. I do
    not need nor ask for forgiveness for what I think or feel because they
    are my thoughts and feelings and I`m the one that has to live with
    them just as she has to live with her deeds. I can not and will not
    forgive someone who admittedly takes the life of not one but two young
    children. I`m not God but I don`t think I would want to go to heaven if
    he has room for her there.

    ...then again there's the flip side of the pompous act of declaring
    her life worthy... no judgement, just covering all the angles.
    
    Chip

    Ahem, you misunderstood.
    You are the one who labels her life unworthy. This is out of a human's
    scope to decide (IMO) - whether another human's life is unworthy or
    not.
    
    

    .357
    Ahem, you misunderstood.
    This is my opinion to label her life unworthy and on election day thats
    when my opinion counts.

    
    .358
    Opinions don't terminate lives. You suggested to kill her.

  Well once again the counter to my discussion of neural nets and how they
pertain to child abuse is ridicule. But that's no surprise, when Darwin and
Huxley tried to argue that we were descended from other life forms the only
argument the conservative religious right could employ was the same sort of
empty cynicism.

  If you program a cruise missile to fly through someone's window are you not
responsible for the destruction because "software is nothing"? If you program a
child's neural net through child abuse are you not responsible for the
destruction that may cause because "software is nothing"? 

  And the answer I'll get of course will be "Ha, Ha, Ha, the Monkey Doctor",
  George

    So be it...kill her. I`ll pay for the bullet.

    No matter how you slice it I still want no part of heaven if she winds
    up there.

    God may forgive her. 

    Why, because she might ask for it? What a crock. What about the kids?
    If he does forgive her that will just reinforce my atheism. Looks like
    my church isn`t ready for me yet.

>  If you program a cruise missile to fly through someone's window are you not
>responsible for the destruction because "software is nothing"? If you program a
>child's neural net through child abuse are you not responsible for the
>destruction that may cause because "software is nothing"? 

	George, are these two things, er, um, examples really analogous though?
	There would seem to be a difference between programming a missile, with
	the knowledge that it will likely cause a certain type of destruction,
	that being its purpose, and abusing a child, with no knowledge that
	the child will eventually drown her two kids in a lake.

RE                       <<< Note 37.364 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>

>    Why, because she might ask for it? What a crock. What about the kids?
>    If he does forgive her that will just reinforce my atheism. Looks like
>    my church isn`t ready for me yet.

  Yeah too bad. But maybe some day all churches will learn to hate like the
religious right and then you'll be happy.

  Of course if you are happy then you will not be filled with hate and will
no longer be hole-ie.

  George

RE    <<< Note 37.365 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	George, are these two things, er, um, examples really analogous though?
>	There would seem to be a difference between programming a missile, with
>	the knowledge that it will likely cause a certain type of destruction,
>	that being its purpose, and abusing a child, with no knowledge that
>	the child will eventually drown her two kids in a lake.

  It's different but could end up with the same result. 

  For example, take the two twins Frank and Ralph. Frank hates cops and decides
to shoot officer O'Brady. He walks out to the street corner where O'Brady is
directing traffic and shoots him dead. 

  Meanwhile, Ralph doesn't mind cops but decides to rob a bank claiming that
the banana in his jacket pocket is a gun. While chasing him out of the bank
Officer O'Mally falls into a manhole and dies. 

  Now although Frank clearly wanted to kill officer O'Brady, Ralph had no
intention of killing O'Mally, however they could both be charged with 1st
degree murder under common law. While Frank would be charged with premeditated
murder, O'Mally could be charged with felony murder since a death resulted
during the commission of a felony. 

  If Susan Smith murdered her children as a result of child abuse then they
died as the result of a commission of that felony (child abuse) and the alleged
perpetrator of that felony (her step father) should be charged with felony
murder. 

  George 

	So, if person A steals all of person B's money and leaves him
	totally broke, and person B gets so down on his luck that
	he eventually kills someone, person A should be charged 
	with the murder?
 

RE    <<< Note 37.368 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	So, if person A steals all of person B's money and leaves him
>	totally broke, and person B gets so down on his luck that
>	he eventually kills someone, person A should be charged 
>	with the murder?
 
  In felony murder you must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that
there was a felony and that an unlawful death occurred as the result of that
death. 

  I believe that it would be difficult to prove to a jury that someone's luck
changed because their money was stolen and that they killed someone because of
that change of luck. 

  However there is a tremendous amount of evidence to show that child abuse
leads to violent behavior once the children grow. 

  George 

    George,
    
    >If Susan Smith murdered her children as a result of child abuse then
    >they died as the result of a commission of that felony (child abuse) and 
    >the alleged perpetrator of that felony (her step father) should be 
    >charged with felony murder.
    
    	And what about Susan Smith? What should she be charged with?
    
    							Hank

RE            <<< Note 37.370 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>

>    	And what about Susan Smith? What should she be charged with?
    
  From what I've read there seems to be probably cause for 1st degree murder.
If they stipulate to the act then the degree to which Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome might mitigate the charge should be up to the jury. 

  George

>>  I believe that it would be difficult to prove to a jury that someone's luck
>>changed because their money was stolen and that they killed someone because of
>>that change of luck. 

	Well, heck, he could be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
	Syndrome, no?  This is a very dangerous bit of psychobabble
	we'll be encountering with astounding frequency in the future,
	I fear.

    
    George is wrong because the same thing can be said about whoever
    twenty years ago allegedly abused her, etc.  Nobody is ever guilty
    of anything.  There is no need to argue with George about whether
    a person was "inadvertantly programmed" by some early misadventure,
    or by poisonous chemicals or drugs, or by a hypnotist.  So what if
    she were ?  We don't and shouldn't take any such thing into account
    in determining guilt.  The question in determining sentence is a
    question of the heinousness of the act, and any mitigating conditions,
    not over differing theories of psychobabble, which are irrelevant.
    The mitigating circumstance would be insanity, a possible plea here.
    But I suspect any jury would be skeptical given the circumstances.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 37.372 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	Well, heck, he could be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
>	Syndrome, no?  This is a very dangerous bit of psychobabble
>	we'll be encountering with astounding frequency in the future,
>	I fear.

  When you say it's psychobabble I can't help but remember some of the cynical
things written by 19th century religious leaders with regard to Darwin's work.
He was called "the monkey doctor", preachers would actually joke during their
services about how the members had "monkeys for grandparents", etc. 

  Then I'm sure there were all sorts of plumbing jokes when medical people
tried to stop the practice of bleeding out evil spirits claiming that the heart
was nothing but a pump for the circulatory system. 

  My favorite story of this sort was a debate between a young scientist who was
saying the world was round and an older scholar who knew it was flat. The
youngster asked "if the world is flat, what does it stand on? The answer from
the old gentleman was "A giant Arch". Not deterred the youngster asked "And what
does the arch stand on" to which the scholar replied "Why it stands on the back
of two great elephants". 

  When the youngster asked "and what do the elephants stand on" the scholar now
a bit ruffled replied "They stand on a giant pile of rocks, but don't ask me
what the rocks stand on, it's nothing but rocks all the way down to the
bottom." 

  George 

  So clearly this is one more case where modern science is discovering that yet
another part of the universe, namely the human brain, is a natural process
rather than some sort of spirit driven by hocus pocus. 

  And while liberals are ready to accept the fact that the brain is a neural
net that is programmed by experiences and that human behavior is the result
of the processing of those neural nets, the conservatives are still trying to
drive the demons from our midst branding undesired human behavior as evil. 

  George

    re. 367
    
>  Now although Frank clearly wanted to kill officer O'Brady, Ralph had no
>intention of killing O'Mally, however they could both be charged with 1st
>degree murder under common law. While Frank would be charged with premeditated
>murder, O'Mally could be charged with felony murder since a death resulted
>during the commission of a felony. 

>  If Susan Smith murdered her children as a result of child abuse then they
>died as the result of a commission of that felony (child abuse) and the alleged
>perpetrator of that felony (her step father) should be charged with felony
>murder. 

    
    	You are absolutely wrong about her step father. Read the previous
    paragraph. You correctly stated the felony murder law as "during the
    commission of a felony". The step father did not abuse her DURING THE 
    COMMISION OF THE FELONY. Therefor he cannot be charged with felony
    murder.
    
    ed

    >  And while liberals are ready to accept the fact that the brain is a
    >neural net that is programmed by experiences and that human behavior 
    >is the result of the processing of those neural nets
    
     Translation: nobody can be held accountable for anything, no matter
    what the consequences of their chosen actions are because there is in
    actuality no free choice.
    
    >the conservatives are still trying to drive the demons from our midst 
    >branding undesired human behavior as evil.
    
     Translation: conservatives want the actions to speak for themselves,
    and remove from society those who perform antisocial acts (whether
    chosen or not.)

>>  And while liberals are ready to accept the fact that the brain is a neural
>>net that is programmed by experiences and that human behavior is the result
>>of the processing of those neural nets...

	;>  Oh lordy - this is hardly a news flash, George.  Throwing 
	a little pseudo-intellectual terminology into the mix is fun, but
	doesn't transform it from common sense into the discovery of the
	century.

RE   <<< Note 37.378 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Slow movin', once quickdraw outlaw" >>>

>    	You are absolutely wrong about her step father. Read the previous
>    paragraph. You correctly stated the felony murder law as "during the
>    commission of a felony". The step father did not abuse her DURING THE 
>    COMMISION OF THE FELONY. Therefor he cannot be charged with felony
>    murder.
    
  You didn't read carefully. The felony I'm speaking of here is the abuse, not
the premeditated murder.

  Since the two deaths resulted in part from the commission of a felony (the
abuse) then the individual who committed that felony (the abuse) should be
charged with felony murder.

  Also there is a 3rd type of murder, that being "depraved heart murder". That
is a case where a death results from placing the public at such a risk that a
reasonable person would assume death could result. It's the case most often
used for things like placing a bomb in a train station set to go off when
the station is crowed.

  It would seem to me that a case could be made that by abusing Susan Smith
the step father created a mental time bomb that went off killing her children.
If that is the case then he could also be charged with "depraved heart murder".

  George

    
      Causation is being abused here.  When aircraft bounce, the FAA is
     required to make their best judgement what the cause was.  I have
     always wanted one of these somber inspectors to say, "The cause of
     the crash was the force of gravity".  But they'd be fired (quite
     right, too) for telling this truth.  That is not what is meant by
     their charter to find the cause.
    
      And it is no defense to murder to say, "I had no choice because a
     series of many events in the past caused my brain to be in a condition
     that caused an irresistible impulse to drown defenseless children."
     If we ever admit such a defense, whether true or not, we can retire
     all lawyers, since all those charged with anything are by definition
     innocent.
    
     bb

RE           <<< Note 37.379 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Translation: nobody can be held accountable for anything, no matter
>    what the consequences of their chosen actions are because there is in
>    actuality no free choice.

  No one is saying that. You can still hold Susan Smith accountable for the
murder. As I've said repeatedly it would be up to the jury to decide if Post
Traumatic Stress Syndrome were a mitigating factor.

  But rather than letting the individual who may have caused the crime to get
off free, I'm suggesting that a jury also be allowed to determine to what
extent his abuse of Susan Smith contributed to the crime.
    
>     Translation: conservatives want the actions to speak for themselves,
>    and remove from society those who perform antisocial acts (whether
>    chosen or not.)

  ... while completely ignoring those who may have caused the act in the 1st
place. 

  George

    But the murder has to take place DURING the commission of the felony
    (the ABUSE). 
    ed

RE    <<< Note 37.380 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	;>  Oh lordy - this is hardly a news flash, George.  Throwing 
>	a little pseudo-intellectual terminology into the mix is fun, but
>	doesn't transform it from common sense into the discovery of the
>	century.

  And once again you sound like those who criticized Darwin. 

  Let me ask you this. Do you accept the theory that the human brain is a
neural net or not?

  If you do, then why do you refer to any discussion of that as pseudo
intellectual terminology? 

  George

    Does this mean that because my parents beat me as a child that its ok
    to kill my children? If that be the case then I don`t know why my kids
    are still alive. This abuse is an easy cop out and on that should not
    be allowed in the courts. Give me a brake!

    
    You know, in all honesty I really didn't GAS before, but after
    reading this endless dirge of leftist poop, now I'm hoping they
    introduce a few extra kilovolts to her neural net.
    
    -b

    
    George, since you often speak of what "liberals" believe I had to
    respond to this 

>   Since the two deaths resulted in part from the commission of a felony (the
> abuse) then the individual who committed that felony (the abuse) should be
> charged with felony murder.


    This liberal thinks this is bullcrap.  The abuse and murders are separate 
    issues.  The abuse (if true) should be dealt with on its own.  The
    murders should be dealt with on its own.  

    IMO your theory flunks any logical test.  How come 99.9% of people who
    are abused manage to avoid murdering people? (or whatever the extremely
    high percentage is)  Sure the abuse effected her but she was wired
    wrong NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN HER PAST.  I find such "Victim
    Defenses" as totally degrading to the vast majority of victims of abuse
    who have managed to overcome it without committing crimes against
    others.
                                                           
    Greg_the_liberal 
    
    
    

RE                       <<< Note 37.386 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>

>    Does this mean that because my parents beat me as a child that its ok
>    to kill my children? If that be the case then I don`t know why my kids
>    are still alive. This abuse is an easy cop out and on that should not
>    be allowed in the courts. Give me a brake!

  No, but it would mean that your parents would in part be responsible for
the death of your children and due to this mitigating circumstance you would
only be partly responsible, not completely responsible.

  George

RE      <<< Note 37.387 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

>    You know, in all honesty I really didn't GAS before, but after
>    reading this endless dirge of leftist poop, now I'm hoping they
>    introduce a few extra kilovolts to her neural net.
    
  More anti-darwin style ridicule. Evidence that your case is weak.

  George

    
    First we get .360 from meowski... 
    
    then he responds with .366
    
    
    

    .386
    Lets run right up to the cemetary and start digging...I`ll provid the
    shovels. When are we going to take responsibility for our own actions.
    Any one can pass the buck. 
    
    Does this mean that if my parents were alive and I abused them in their
    old age that they can kill their grandchildren? 

RE                     <<< Note 37.388 by ASABET::YANNEKIS >>>

>    IMO your theory flunks any logical test.  How come 99.9% of people who
>    are abused manage to avoid murdering people? (or whatever the extremely
>    high percentage is)  

  If the 1st 99 bombs planted in Rail Road stations fail to kill anyone and
the 100th does do you excuse the bomber because most bombs don't kill anyone?

>Sure the abuse effected her but she was wired
>    wrong NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN HER PAST.  

  How do you know this? Maybe if she had not been abused she would have reacted
differently. And maybe not, but should be for the jury to decide. 

  George

    
    Since when was Darwin a latter day saint?
    
    jeff

    >As I've said repeatedly it would be up to the jury to decide if Post
    >Traumatic Stress Syndrome were a mitigating factor.
    
     There is considerable question as to whether PTSS applies at all in
    this case. Abuse does not in and of itself constitute traumatic stress
    of the sort that causes the reactions termed PTSS. Her abuse happened
    years ago (assuming it happened at all) and is extremely unlikely to be
    a cause of PTSS.
    
    >  But rather than letting the individual who may have caused the crime
    >to get off free, I'm suggesting that a jury also be allowed to determine 
    >to what extent his abuse of Susan Smith contributed to the crime.
    
     Here's where we have our major disagreement. Regardless of whether her
    father abused her, he did not cause this crime. By following your own
    tenets of irresponsibility, he can claim that something traumatic in
    his own life caused him to abuse Susan (maybe a relative abused him or
    something.) This other person can also pass the buck. And so on, ad
    absurdum until finally Thak is deemed responsible for having cracked
    his son over the head with a club 20,000 years ago. but Thak was a
    member of a primitive culture who cannot be expected to behave in a
    20th century way, so in fact no one is responsible for the crime. Let's
    all go have tea, shall we?
    

RE         <<< Note 37.394 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

    
>    Since when was Darwin a latter day saint?
    

  At least you admit that you have your mind back in 19th century folk lore.

  For that you have my unending respect.

  George

>>  And once again you sound like those who criticized Darwin. 

	By saying that I don't think this "neural net" thing is anything
	but common knowledge/common sense?  How so?

>>  Let me ask you this. Do you accept the theory that the human brain is a
>>neural net or not?

	"Neural net".  Jiminy cricket, man, the brain is obviously a retainer
	and reprocessor, and yes, events in the past can impact our actions in
	the future, and yes, we can be driven to do things we wouldn't
	otherwise have done but for old stimuli.  What is so new about all
	this?

RE           <<< Note 37.395 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     There is considerable question as to whether PTSS applies at all in
>    this case. Abuse does not in and of itself constitute traumatic stress
>    of the sort that causes the reactions termed PTSS. Her abuse happened
>    years ago (assuming it happened at all) and is extremely unlikely to be
>    a cause of PTSS.

  Maybe and maybe not. That would be for a jury to decide.
    
>     Here's where we have our major disagreement. Regardless of whether her
>    father abused her, he did not cause this crime. By following your own
>    tenets of irresponsibility, he can claim that something traumatic in
>    his own life caused him to abuse Susan (maybe a relative abused him or
>    something.) This other person can also pass the buck. And so on, ad
>    absurdum until finally Thak is deemed responsible for having cracked
>    his son over the head with a club 20,000 years ago. 

  Exactly. In fact, all of human behavior is nothing more than the result of
the processing of so many neural nets as they respond to events that have
happened over the millennia.

  There is no right or wrong, no evil or good, only the flow of energy and
matter spinning through the cosmos.

  George

    I thought it was her step-father that abused her? Why didn`t he get
    jail time...looks like the court system wasn`t there then either now
    was it.

    
>  If the 1st 99 bombs planted in Rail Road stations fail to kill anyone and
> the 100th does do you excuse the bomber because most bombs don't kill anyone?

    You are equating ... bomber >=> bomb       >=> blast    ... with
    			 abuser >=> kid/parent >=> murder

    There is one big difference ... Susan Smith in the middle is a thinking
    human and not an inanimate thing ... she could think about what she was
    doing and the bomb couldn't.  A much better analogy would have been a
    manual on how to build a bomb, 100 people who read it, and 1 idiot who
    sets off a bomb ... the folks in the middle are responsible for their
    actions.



>>Sure the abuse effected her but she was wired
>>    wrong NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN HER PAST.  
>
>  How do you know this? Maybe if she had not been abused she would have reacted
> differently. And maybe not, but should be for the jury to decide. 

    Of course she would have turned out different if she had been abused
    (assuming she had).  What ranks on your list of things to consider? 
    If she claims she's devastated because Mr. X turned her down for a date
    should he be tried for murder as, by your logic, his actions are
    partially responsible for her current mental state.  What about that C
    in French in High School?  Or her grandmother she got her pimples from?
    It sounds like anyone responsible for any negative event in her life is
    now partially responsible if she says it caused her to get screwed up.
     
    Greg
    

>  There is no right or wrong, no evil or good, only the flow of energy and
>matter spinning through the cosmos.

Incredible.

The scary thing is, I actually think you believe this.

If an intruder breaks into your home and splatters your neural net all
over the kitchen wall with a large guage firearm, taking out Patty and
her kids in the bargain in a similarly violent manner, would you expect
society to look upon the matter as being neither right nor wrong, good
nor evil?

RE         <<< Note 37.401 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>  There is no right or wrong, no evil or good, only the flow of energy and
>>matter spinning through the cosmos.
>
>Incredible.
>The scary thing is, I actually think you believe this.

  Why not, this is nothing more than classical existentialism.

>If an intruder breaks into your home and splatters your neural net all
>over the kitchen wall with a large guage firearm, taking out Patty and
>her kids in the bargain in a similarly violent manner, would you expect
>society to look upon the matter as being neither right nor wrong, good
>nor evil?

  Of course it would. There's no reason to expect that my neural net would not
respond to the violence and loss any different than anyone else's.

  The only difference is that while I was seeking my revenge, in the back of
my mind I'd understand that my anger and grief were nothing more than the
output of a computer program.

  George

    Phew, did I stumble into the Twilight Zone?
    
    Levesque, you beat me to it.....my thoughts were the same.  What if
    the step-father claims PTSD.  The buck must stop somewhere.
    
    As was the case with the Menendez brothers, I find it interesting
    to note that the subject of abuse didn't come up until SS had been
    arrested and jailed.  
    
    The police first considered SS a suspect when they found letters in
    her home from the young man who had recently broken off a relation-
    ship with her (I guess George would consider him culpable also; well
    he did bweak her widdle heart) :-}
    
    It will be interesting, to be sure; I doubt any jury would buy
    George's theories.  She duped many locals and roped people in
    emotionally all over the country.  I don't think too many jurors
    will sympathize with a weeping, emotional SS; most people fell
    for that act while the boys were missing.
    
    

    Dead people don't get any revenge.

    
    For some reason, George's latest maunderings in here make me think
    of the movie Schindler's List.  If we are computers, we certainly
    aren't much like any of the ones we make.  The difference is that
    living things are "part of their environment" in a way no man-made
    machine ever is.  Roger Penrose wrote a book about this called
    "The Emperor's New Mind", if I remember rightly.  He argued that
    humans have features demonstrably of a different sort than any
    machines, and predicted that reproducing those features may prove
    far more difficult than computer scientists suppose.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 37.403 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Levesque, you beat me to it.....my thoughts were the same.  What if
>    the step-father claims PTSD.  The buck must stop somewhere.

  No, in your opinion the buck should stop somewhere but the buck never really
stops. Even if you punish a perpetrator that creates yet another effect which
will evoke yet another response. Maybe you will get lucky and further incidence
will be detured. Maybe not.
    
>    It will be interesting, to be sure; I doubt any jury would buy
>    George's theories.  

  They are not my theories. I'm just paraphrasing existential philosophy which
has been around for centuries.

>She duped many locals and roped people in
>    emotionally all over the country.  I don't think too many jurors
>    will sympathize with a weeping, emotional SS; most people fell
>    for that act while the boys were missing.
    
  Keep in mind, one thing that all those people who were roped in emotional
have in common is that none of them will be eligible to serve on the jury.
As with any jury to be eligible each juror will have to convince the court that
they have no predetermined opinion as to her guilt or innocence.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 37.405 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    For some reason, George's latest maunderings in here make me think
>    of the movie Schindler's List.  

  I wonder how you mean that. I seem to be the one that wants to stop the
violence and the people I am arguing against seem to be the ones asking for
the use of a state sanctioned death chamber. So I wonder, which of us is
Schindler?

>If we are computers, we certainly
>    aren't much like any of the ones we make.  

  No one ever said we were. Digital doesn't build neural nets.

>The difference is that
>    living things are "part of their environment" in a way no man-made
>    machine ever is.  

  Well back in 1895 "flying machines" were nothing like birds in that they
were either lighter than air or could only glide down. The next century that
all changed.

>Roger Penrose wrote a book about this called
>    "The Emperor's New Mind", if I remember rightly.  He argued that
>    humans have features demonstrably of a different sort than any
>    machines, and predicted that reproducing those features may prove
>    far more difficult than computer scientists suppose.
    
  Through out history there have always been Roger Penroses arguing that
the next technology was impossible. What else is new?

  George

    
    George, if all you got out of Spielberg's flik was "Gas chambers
    are a bad idea", you must have a malfunctioning VCR.  The movie's
    theme is the human concept of evil and response to it.
    
    In STNG, Commander Data explores the same theme, on a more pulptrash
    level.  Ethics has a mysterious side.  Even those who try very hard to
    practice it often cannot define what it is in such a way that they
    can predict their own responses in "evil" situations.

RE                      <<< Note 37.408 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>    George, if all you got out of Spielberg's flik was "Gas chambers
>    are a bad idea", you must have a malfunctioning VCR.  The movie's
>    theme is the human concept of evil and response to it.

  Or the movies theme was the human concept of the total repression of the
civil liberties of minorities by the ultra right wing depending on your point
of view. 
    
>    In STNG, Commander Data explores the same theme, on a more pulptrash
>    level.  Ethics has a mysterious side.  Even those who try very hard to
>    practice it often cannot define what it is in such a way that they
>    can predict their own responses in "evil" situations.

  I'm not arguing against this. All I'm saying is that "evil" is a human
invention created and recognized due only to the processing of millions of
neural nets. And further that this definition is not an exact science.

  To say that Susan Smith is 100% responsible for this crime and that all
others are 0% responsible suggests to me a simplistic model of reality that
while convenient may or may not match up with reality.

  George

>>  To say that Susan Smith is 100% responsible for this crime and that all
>>others are 0% responsible suggests to me a simplistic model of reality that
>>while convenient may or may not match up with reality.

	Who has been using these 100%, 0% numbers?

    just for the record, i believe that the priciples of flight between
    aircraft and birds are very, very different. each deriving lift
    differently. can someone confirm this?
    
    also, can someone confirm a company that does neural nets?
    
    sorry...
    
    Chip

RE                    <<< Note 37.411 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    also, can someone confirm a company that does neural nets?
    
  What point are you trying to make? If Boeing was not building aircraft in
1895 did that mean that aircraft would never be built? 

  George

	And I can't help but remember the old line about how you can
	fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people
	some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of 
	time.

	But so what?

RE    <<< Note 37.410 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>>>  To say that Susan Smith is 100% responsible for this crime and that all
>>>others are 0% responsible suggests to me a simplistic model of reality that
>>>while convenient may or may not match up with reality.
>
>	Who has been using these 100%, 0% numbers?

  There have been several notes talking about how "someone must be held
accountable" and "the buck must stop somewhere". This would suggest that
regardless why a crime is committed, we must have a scape goat.

  All I am pointing out is that human behavior is not always that simple.
It is the result of the processing of complex neural nets which take in many
factors, including but not limited to it's own ability to think rationally.

  George

    
    The ultimate victim mentality....

  No, what I'm arguing against is the ultimate victim mentality.

  George

    
    <------
    
    I doubt it...
    
    If I kill you, it's because I was the victim of my father's brutality,
    who it turn was victimized by his father, who was victimized during the
    war because it was brutal, who was victimized... ad naseum
    

RE    <<< Note 37.416 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    If I kill you, it's because I was the victim of my father's brutality,
>    who it turn was victimized by his father, who was victimized during the
>    war because it was brutal, who was victimized... ad naseum
    
  Show me a note where I said this.

  You are quoting me badly out of context. I wonder, are you just twisting my
words to prop up your side of the argument or are you really having that much
trouble following the debate. 

  Then I suppose in your defense you could just be typing in a knee jerk
response to what other conservatives claim liberals are saying during this
argument rather than actually reading what I wrote. 

  I'm curious, how could you have miss quoted what I said by so much. 

  George 

    
        Well, personally I think a person needs to take responsibility
    for their actions. I've been victimized, but I've never re-victimized.
    I know I'm not perfect and I haven't always made the right decisions,
    but I would never kill a child, molest anyone, beat on anyone (maybe
    argue a bit). I may get very angry when I'm having a bad day and
    thinking about my god-father when he sexually abused me as a little
    girl, but that doesn't lead me to go out and get revenge on him
    by hurting someone else. People shouldn't hurt others in revenge
    of be hurt. But, of course that's the excuse a lot use.... Well,
    I was abused so I had to abuse my children. Garbage!
    
        I know it isn't easy to deal with having been abused, but I
    don't feel it gives that person a right to hurt innocent people.
    
        I have on occasion wanted to hurt my abusive, and I'm glad
    I never acted upon it. I knew it was wrong, what he did to me
    was wrong, but to take and murder because of it would have also
    been wrong. I certainly wouldn't murder some little children,
    or anyone else just because I figured it would be a good way to 
    get back at my god-father. Or, I was so deranged I couldn't think
    straight. There are times when I felt like I couldn't think straight,
    but I did know right from wrong. Maybe some go deeper into the
    anger or something, but I still don't feel that they should
    use being "abused" as a reason for murdering innocent people.
    
        Just my 2 cents worth.
    
        Rosie

    
    
    RE: .417
    
    Meowski....
    
     My .416 was an explanation of my .414 not your .415
    
    Simple really...
    

RE                      <<< Note 37.418 by BIGQ::MARCHAND >>>

>        Well, personally I think a person needs to take responsibility
>    for their actions. I've been victimized, but I've never re-victimized.

  Good for you. I'm glad that option was available to you.

>        I know it isn't easy to deal with having been abused, but I
>    don't feel it gives that person a right to hurt innocent people.

>    ... Maybe some go deeper into the
>    anger or something, but I still don't feel that they should
>    use being "abused" as a reason for murdering innocent people.

  I don't think anyone is saying that it does.

  What I've talked about is abuse as a "mitigating circumstance" which is
something else entirely.

  George

    George,
    
    Rosie was giving you an response based in "reality"; I think it
    goes a long way in demonstrating just how far out to lunch some
    of your "theories" are. You wax philosophical so much I think
    you sometimes lose sight of the fact that there are real people
    behind the node names; people who have experienced a lot of this
    stuff first-hand.
    
    Re:  People duped by SS won't be sitting on the jury......
    
    I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  Unless she gets a change of venue
    to S. Dakota it's going to be very difficult to find anyone in
    the state of SC who hasn't heard of the case (how many times was
    SS on the tube pleading for the return of her precious babies).
    
    We all agree she's entitled to a fair trial; but as horrific as
    the Simpson murders are, 2 children dying at the hands of their
    mother will be difficult for almost anyone (with one possible
    exception) to stomach.
    
    

RE    <<< Note 37.421 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Rosie was giving you an response based in "reality"; I think it
>    goes a long way in demonstrating just how far out to lunch some
>    of your "theories" are. 

  Are you dismissing all of existentialism as "out to lunch"?

>You wax philosophical so much I think
>    you sometimes lose sight of the fact that there are real people
>    behind the node names; people who have experienced a lot of this
>    stuff first-hand.

  I'm not challenging anything that Rosie experienced. I'm talking about how
the human brain functions and the philosophical implications of the human
neural net on theories of right and wrong.
    
>    I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  Unless she gets a change of venue
>    to S. Dakota it's going to be very difficult to find anyone in
>    the state of SC who hasn't heard of the case (how many times was
>    SS on the tube pleading for the return of her precious babies).

  The standard is not so much finding someone who never heard of the case.
The standard is to find someone who has not formed an opinion about the
case.
    
>    We all agree she's entitled to a fair trial; but as horrific as
>    the Simpson murders are, 2 children dying at the hands of their
>    mother will be difficult for almost anyone (with one possible
>    exception) to stomach.
    
  If what you are saying is true then there can be no fair trial and thus
no conviction.

  George

    George,
    
    As much as it pains me to admit it; after hearing the verdict
    rendered in a trial here in Georgia (I put it in Crime and Punish-
    ment) I'm starting to agree with the last sentence in your note.
    
    

    .412
    no George, what point are trying to make comparing the human brain with
    computers? that's the question we were continually poke at when you
    enter these confusing analogies...
    
    Chip
    
    P.S. the Boeing question has to do with...?

>
>	Who has been using these 100%, 0% numbers?

>>  There have been several notes talking about how "someone must be held
>>accountable" and "the buck must stop somewhere". This would suggest that
>>regardless why a crime is committed, we must have a scape goat.

	Saying that Susan Smith should be held accountable for drowning
	her children is not the same as saying that she is 100% responsible
	for her actions.  Accusing us of scapegoating her is absolutely
	preposterous.

>>  All I am pointing out is that human behavior is not always that simple.

	George, do you _really_ think that this needs to be pointed out
	to us??  A tad condescending, no?

>>  There is no right or wrong, no evil or good, only the flow of energy and
>>matter spinning through the cosmos.
>
>Incredible.
>The scary thing is, I actually think you believe this.

>  Why not, this is nothing more than classical existentialism.

>  George

Me thinks you better re-read your classical existentialism as you have drawn
a false conclusion.  Personal responsibility is the conclusion drawn by
    existentialism.
    
    jeff

RE                    <<< Note 37.424 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

> no George, what point are [you] trying to make comparing the human brain with
> computers? that's the question we were continually poke at when you
> enter these confusing analogies...
    
  The point I'm trying to make is that the brain is a computer. It is a neural
network which is a type of computer architecture.

  It is my theory that the computer we possess between our ears which we call
our brain can be controlled through rational thought to some extent but that
control is not absolute. That ability to control our own neural nets varies
from individual to individual which is why some people seem to engage in
addictive behavior more than others. 

  Most theories we hear from law and order types about how we should all be
"held accountable" make the erroneous assumption that we have complete control
over these neural nets which is just not factually correct. They just don't work
that way. 

  From what I've read, the way you program a neural net is by exposing it to
input (i.e. experience) and it appears that in many cases of child abuse the
neural net is modified in such a way as to predispose the person to violence in
a way that others are not predisposed. And yes, not everyone is effected in the
same way but some obviously do undergo this type of change. 

  If that is the case, they by saying these people should be held accountable
for their actions, you are saying that a computer should be required to come to
one conclusion when in fact it is programmed to come to another conclusion. It
is saying that if we close our eyes and wish real hard, any bugs in our
software should just cease to exist. 

  After spending a quarter century writing and debugging software I find that
point of view to be at best uninformed and at worst ludicrous.

  George

>  If that is the case, they by saying these people should be held accountable
>for their actions, you are saying that a computer should be required to come to
>one conclusion when in fact it is programmed to come to another conclusion.

I don't think that's what's being said at all. I think what's being said is,
that while that analogy is of some interest, following through with it and
exonerating people because it can be argued that they shouldn't be held
accountable for acts for which they are quite obviously guilty, is wrong.
It strikes a path which is dangerous, and it allows for an already flawed
judicial system to be yet further corrupted and deteriorated to the point
that it is approaching worthlessness. The guilty should be punished, not
allowed to plea all manner of groundless fantasies on the basis of lack
of accountability.

    
>  The point I'm trying to make is that the brain is a computer. It is a neural
>network which is a type of computer architecture.

>  George

  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the computer is a type of brain
  since the computer is a construct of the brain not the other way 'round?

  Isn't equating the brain (which we lack so much understanding of) strictly
  with a computer (which we understand completely) rather simplistic and
  probably inaccurate?

  Bad analogies lead to bad conclusions, usually false conclusions.

  jeff

RE         <<< Note 37.428 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I don't think that's what's being said at all. I think what's being said is,
>that while that analogy is of some interest, following through with it and
>exonerating people because it can be argued that they shouldn't be held
>accountable for acts for which they are quite obviously guilty, is wrong.

  Can you point to anyone who has suggested that Susan Smith should be
exonerated? I believe we are discussing mitigating circumstances, not an
acquittal.

>The guilty should be punished, not
>allowed to plea all manner of groundless fantasies on the basis of lack
>of accountability.

  We are not talking about groundless fantasies. We are talking about very real
limitations of the software that exists in the neural net of the defendant's 
brain.

  George

    
        I wasn't replying to anything anyone said in here. I just read
    along and "listen". I just wrote what I did as a personal opinion,
    it was my personal issue only. 
    
        I personally feel that if Susan Smith murdered her children, it
    had nothing to do with any abuse she may have gone through. These were
    2 innocent babies. Whoever killed them is a monster.
    
        Rosie

>  Can you point to anyone who has suggested that Susan Smith should be
>exonerated? I believe we are discussing mitigating circumstances, not an
>acquittal.

I think that the allowance of these types of mitigating circumstances to
soften the sentence and the charges is stepping in the direction of
eventual exoneration of similar criminals in the future, which was why
I mentioned the further corruption and deterioration of the judicial
system. Because of the precedents set in the judicial system over the past
century or so, we have far too many people serving reduced or no sentence
for crimes which would have gotten them a noose in earlier times. The
legal profession sits like a flock of vultures waiting for bad decisions
to be handed down in order to use them in future cases to strengthen
unjust defenses and weaken the judicial system even further.

>  We are talking about very real
>limitations of the software that exists in the neural net of the defendant's 
>brain.

The limitations to which you refer are not all that "real" and certainly not
as well understood as those in a piece of code, as evidenced by those who
act rationally though subjected to the same traumas. Free will, again, remember?

RE         <<< Note 37.429 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the computer is a type of brain
>  since the computer is a construct of the brain not the other way 'round?

  Would it be appropriate to say that a hammer is a type of brain since the
hammer is a construct of the brain? 

  The word "computer" refers to a class of machines capable of using a program
in their memory to process data in that same memory. The word "brain" refers
to that organ in the human body capable of thought.

  The brain is a type of computer but not all computers are brains.

>  Isn't equating the brain (which we lack so much understanding of) strictly
>  with a computer (which we understand completely) rather simplistic and
>  probably inaccurate?

  Probably not. We understand quite a bit more about the brain than you may
think. We understand exactly what part of the brain controls what function
and we understand the way neurons are connected to form neural networks.

  We understand how neurons cause other neurons to fire by raising the level
of electric current above a threshold and we've built models that show how
neural nets can process data.

  George

RE         <<< Note 37.432 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I think that the allowance of these types of mitigating circumstances to
>soften the sentence and the charges is stepping in the direction of
>eventual exoneration of similar criminals in the future, which was why
>I mentioned the further corruption and deterioration of the judicial
>system. Because of the precedents set in the judicial system over the past
>century or so, we have far too many people serving reduced or no sentence
>for crimes which would have gotten them a noose in earlier times. 

  Woops, someone's flying upside down. That is exactly backwards. The number
of people incarcerated in prisons, jails, and houses of correction throughout
the country doubled during the 80's and may well double again before the end
of the century. We are putting more people in jail and keeping them for longer
periods of time that at any time in our history.

>The limitations to which you refer are not all that "real" and certainly not
>as well understood as those in a piece of code, as evidenced by those who
>act rationally though subjected to the same traumas. 

  The limitations are very real. How else do you describe addiction? Do you
think that people want to remain addicted to things that are destroying their
lives?

  And if you think we understand all software, trying debugging GNU software
from the Free Software Foundation some day. Makes brain surgery look like a
snap.

>Free will, again, remember?

  Free will is nothing more than the collective computations of an individual's
neural net. 

  George

>>system. Because of the precedents set in the judicial system over the past
>>century or so, we have far too many people serving reduced or no sentence
>>for crimes which would have gotten them a noose in earlier times. 

>  Woops, someone's flying upside down. That is exactly backwards. The number
>of people incarcerated in prisons, jails, and houses of correction throughout
>the country doubled during the 80's and may well double again before the end
>of the century. We are putting more people in jail and keeping them for longer
>periods of time that at any time in our history.

Please note the operative phrase "gotten them the noose" in the previous
extract. The fact that we have lots of folks in prison instead of swinging
at the end of a rope is not goodness, in my book. And before you attempt
to turn that into something it is not, I'm not speaking about drug offenses
which I understand make up the majority of our incarcerated populous. I'm
speaking about violent felons.

>  The limitations are very real. How else do you describe addiction? Do you
>think that people want to remain addicted to things that are destroying their
>lives?

There is every evidence that many do wish to so remain. Not all, but many.
There  is additional evidence that some have broken their addiction. One
would suppose free will must have been involved there, as well.

RE      <<< Note 37.435 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

  ... very impressive resume but it begs the question, do you do windows?

  Hey, all I'm doing is putting forth a theory and all I get is "Monkey Doctor,
Monkey Doctor" in return.

  If you don't like my theory and if you possess all of this knowledge why not
tell us all where my theory goes wrong instead of just reminding us about your
accomplishments and dishing out insults.

  George

    
      Well, "neural net" is not a term from physiology or neurosurgery.
     It is a term coined by computer scientists, not by doctors.  Their
     claim, unsubstantiated to date, is that an alternative computer
     architecture to the classical von-Neumann machine (briefly, hanging
     CPU's and memories off a system bus) could offer computer solutions
     not now available.  One such area is in pattern-recognition, where
     all actual existing computers are bad-to-very-bad.
    
      The synapses of the brain fire at rates in milliseconds, millions of
     times slower than a transistor can switch.  Yet hang up ten pictures
     on the wall and ask any human and any computer to identify which are
     pictures of cats.  The computer will be slower and will err more.
    
      "Neural network" symposia are not attended by medical people, but
     by software weenies.  To date, their theories have not resulted in
     a working machine.  Nor is it proven their proposed architecture
     actually functions very much like the brain.
    
      bb

RE         <<< Note 37.436 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Please note the operative phrase "gotten them the noose" in the previous
>extract. The fact that we have lots of folks in prison instead of swinging
>at the end of a rope is not goodness, in my book. And before you attempt
>to turn that into something it is not, I'm not speaking about drug offenses
>which I understand make up the majority of our incarcerated populous. I'm
>speaking about violent felons.

  Today there are only 12 states that do not have the death penalty yet there
are only a few hundred on death row out of almost a million people incarcerated.
Even if you had the blood bath of your dreams it would hardly make a dent in
the prison population. Most violent crimes do not result in death and would
not result in capital offenses in most circumstances.

>There is every evidence that many do wish to so remain. Not all, but many.
>There  is additional evidence that some have broken their addiction. One
>would suppose free will must have been involved there, as well.

  ... and some do not. But the point remains, if people can control their
actions with the rational part of their neural net why is there any addiction
at all?

  Addictive behavior happens as a result of part of a human brain which is
not under control of the rational part taking control of the human body. When
someone is trying to quite smoking but can't, why can't they stop? Why don't
they just not smoke cigarettes?

  It's because the rational part of the human brain does not have complete
control over our actions. We just aren't wired that way. Our rational thoughts
have a great deal of influence over our actions but absolute control is not
there in many if not most people. 

  Strict law and order may provide a boost to those who wish to follow the law
but it will never change the fact that the human brain is only partly controlled
by rational thought. And if it can be shown that a particular individual is
only partly in control of their actions then they should only be held partly
responsible for those actions.

  George

    Yes George, I do Windows. In fact, I'm doing them right now.
    
    >If you don't like my theory and if you possess all of this knowledge why not
    >tell us all where my theory goes wrong instead of just reminding us about your
    >accomplishments...
    
    My "resume" was not entered for the hell of it... it was entered
    in response to your claim that 25 years of software hacking has
    made all this so clear to you. Well, it's certainly not clear to
    me, and it's not clear to a hell of a lot of people who have far
    greater credentials in brain theory than either of us. If it is
    so clear to you, perhaps you're in the wrong biz.
    
    But in truth, that's neither here nor there. So what if your
    "theory" is true? So what if it was related to past traumatic
    experience? Should this effect her accountability? I say,
    it should not. That's what, I think, _most_ people have been
    trying to say to you. Yet you cling (painfully I might add)
    to this crap about neural nets, with the implication that
    if we don't like your theory we can invent our own useless
    theory and spend a great deal of time defending it. No
    thanks. I gleefully admit I don't care why she did it and
    no theories will be forthcoming.
    
    Let her have her trial, and pardon me, but I hope it ends
    in a guilty verdict with a death sentence. If she's drain
    bamaged, give her the best psychological counseling that
    the state can afford, right up to the day she is executed.
    
    > ... and dishing out insults.
    
    George, is telling you that you annoy me insulting you?
    If so, stop annoying me and I'll stop telling you, and
    we'll both be happier.
    
    -b

RE      <<< Note 37.440 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

>    Yes George, I do Windows. In fact, I'm doing them right now.

  ... and do you get them clean or is it just a token effort?
    
>    My "resume" was not entered for the hell of it... it was entered
>    in response to your claim that 25 years of software hacking has
>    made all this so clear to you. 

  Why do I think you've quoted me out of context? I don't recall saying that 25
years of software hacking has made this all clear. Maybe I did but I doubt it. 

>    No
>    thanks. I gleefully admit I don't care why she did it and
>    no theories will be forthcoming.

  Well if you don't care why she did it then you are inventing your own type of
law. Under common law the reason why someone kills someone else is the only
thing that determines if it is a homicide and if so what level of homicide. 

>    George, is telling you that you annoy me insulting you?
>    If so, stop annoying me and I'll stop telling you, and
>    we'll both be happier.
    
  Ok, help me here. Can you give me an example of an argument in SOAPBOX where
you disagree but do not find your opponent annoying? All I'm trying to do is
present a theory and get some discussion going. If there is a different method
I could use where we could still disagree but you would not be annoyed I'd be 
glad to give it a try.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 37.438 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>      "Neural network" symposia are not attended by medical people, but
>     by software weenies.  To date, their theories have not resulted in
>     a working machine.  Nor is it proven their proposed architecture
>     actually functions very much like the brain.
    
  This is all very interesting but doesn't really support or challenge much
of what I've said.

  The neurons of the brain appear to be attached in some sort of network and
circumstantial evidence suggests that human thought is a function of that
network. 

  The fact that addiction exists at all suggests that the part of the brain
that controls rational thought can not always control the part of the brain
that actually governs human behavior.

  It would see somewhat unfair to me to hold someone responsible for not
controlling their behavior in a rational way if the only part of their brain
that can understand that rational does not have control over the part of their
brain that carries out the activity in question.

  It's the same as blaming the payroll task for failing to print a check when
the device driver for the printer is broken.

  George

> ... and do you get them clean or is it just a token effort?
    
    My experience indicates that nothing can make Windows clean,
    but I prefer to think of it as a tokin' effort.
    
>Why do I think you've quoted me out of context? I don't recall saying that 25
>years of software hacking has made this all clear. Maybe I did but I doubt it. 
    
    Yes, I admit you never said that. But I do feel that you
    implied it. Not only that, but you seem to be way ahead
    of everyone in the abnormal psychology field in explaining
    it all away.
    
>Well if you don't care why she did it then you are inventing your own type of
>law. Under common law the reason why someone kills someone else is the only
>thing that determines if it is a homicide and if so what level of homicide. 

    I agree with you that is the metric for determining the level
    of homicide. Where we part company radically, is what effect
    that should have on the sentence. I happen to support the
    death penalty, and consider it most unfortunate that it's
    excluded as a sentencing option in most cases except murder
    1.
    
>Ok, help me here. Can you give me an example of an argument in SOAPBOX where
>you disagree but do not find your opponent annoying?
    
    I seem pretty far apart from some people around here on
    gay rights issues, and yet I'm not annoyed with them.
    
>All I'm trying to do is present a theory and get some discussion going. If
>there is a different method I could use where we could still disagree but
>you would not be annoyed I'd be glad to give it a try.
    
    You assume we have to disagree. You've been right before. You
    were right about prop 187 in California, for one, at least to
    the extent that you were right about how it would play out
    in the courts, and how public opinion should not over-ride
    the legal process. I remember praising you in another topic
    in the not too distant pass (forget which one right now).
    Granted, I teased you a bit too, but I hope you took it in
    jest, as that's how I intended it. What annoys me, quite
    frankly, is being argumentative (as I see it) just for the
    hell of it. You're more than entitled to your opinion on
    subjects, and although I would seldom agree with you, we
    could get along just fine (an example of this would be
    Glen Silva, who has very little in common with me politically,
    but we get along quite well). If you would just say something
    like "I don't like guns, don't believe the constitution
    supports the RKBA and I don't believe that people should
    be allowed to possess handguns for personal protection",
    I would still strongly disagree with you, but I think
    that would be more honest than what I see as George's
    12 step process:
    
    Step 1.    Form opinion
    Step 2..11 beat opposition over the head until they tire
               of arguing with you.
    Step 12.   Declare moral victory because everyone else gave up.
    
    I use guns as an example here, but the same principle
    applies. The only way to play George's game here is to
    make up an equally proposterous theory and defend it
    until your sinuses ache. I'll pass.
    
    -b

RE      <<< Note 37.444 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

>    Yes, I admit you never said that. But I do feel that you
>    implied it. Not only that, but you seem to be way ahead
>    of everyone in the abnormal psychology field in explaining
>    it all away.

  I said up front this was a theory. And yes I am trying to push in to a new
area, an existential view of human behavior based on the mind as a function of
a neural net. The Susan Smith seems to be a good vehicle to test that theory
in that Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is likely to be a major part of the
defense.
    
>I happen to support the
>    death penalty, and consider it most unfortunate that it's
>    excluded as a sentencing option in most cases except murder
>    1.

  Not only that, but in most states it has to be Murder 1 with "special
circumstances". Even then there is often another trial to decide between
death and life without parole
    
>What annoys me, quite
>    frankly, is being argumentative (as I see it) just for the
>    hell of it. 

  I'm not being argumentative about this, it's a theory I've tossed out for
discussion.

>    Step 1.    Form opinion
>    Step 2..11 beat opposition over the head until they tire
>               of arguing with you.
>    Step 12.   Declare moral victory because everyone else gave up.

  That's not the case here. There was never any discussion of my theory at all.
The 1st note after I proposed my theory was ridicule and then that turned into
hate.
    
>    I use guns as an example here, but the same principle
>    applies. The only way to play George's game here is to
>    make up an equally proposterous theory and defend it
>    until your sinuses ache. I'll pass.
    
  I believe that in the gun note I was more of a victim of the 12 step system
you proposed than an instigator. You'll notice the gun argument seems to go
on continually and I only occasionally participate. 

  George

    One of those dilemnas of noting... I wrote something stupid;
    not the first time, certainly not the last. Two people,
    neither of whom I want to think poorly of me, have called
    me on it in email. Yes, I'm embarrassed. So, I'm gonna
    do the easy, although certainly not the most courageous
    thing, and remove the self-inflicted thorn in my side.
    Unfortunately, the fingers seem to work much faster than
    the brain sometimes... maybe what I need is a neural
    net overhaul from George. Either way, I'm sorry.
    
    -b

  Hey, what ever it is it's not your fault.

  George

    It's either George's fault for getting me in such a frenzy, or
    that kid who used to steal my lunch money in second grade.
    
    -b

>  Today there are only 12 states that do not have the death penalty yet there
>are only a few hundred on death row out of almost a million people incarcerated.
>Even if you had the blood bath of your dreams it would hardly make a dent in
>the prison population. Most violent crimes do not result in death and would
>not result in capital offenses in most circumstances.

I do believe you've missed my point. Perhaps I should state it more bluntly.
Most (more than 98%) of the folks incarcerated for violent crimes should have
had the death penalty assigned to them as far as I'm concerned. That many of
them have not, is largely the result of "mitigating circumstances" issues
which have softened sentencing at the pleasure of liberal legislatures
which have been elected by a liberal society influenced by a liberal press.
Prior to the turn of the century, this was not the case. The noose was
a much more fashionable appointment kept by most violent felons. "Return
with us now to those golden days of yesteryear . . . ", or so the saying
goes.

>When someone is trying to quite smoking but can't, why can't they stop?
>Why don't they just not smoke cigarettes?

Some do. I started smoking when I was 13. I continued to do so until I
was over 40. 27 years of up to two packs and more a day. And then, one
day, 6 years, five months and 16 days ago, I put the pack down and said,
"I'm not going to smoke anymore", and I haven't had another one since.
I just "stopped smoking cigarettes". Just like you say. Now, I'll grant
you, that over the course of the 27 years, there were other times when
I "tried to quit", but I'll be the first person to admit that under none
of those circumstances did I consciously tell myself "I'm not going to
smoke anymore". It was more like "I wonder if I can stop", or, "I'll
try to stop", but not "I'm not going to smoke anymore".

I don't intend to make light of addictions. Obviously, since it took me
over 27 years to kick a habit, I understand the power that it can have
over one. But neither will I buy the fact that all addictions render
one powerless to change. And I certainly won't buy any crap about one
having the rational part of their brain so confused by trauma that they
can premeditatively strap two innocent children in a car, drive it into
a lake and watch them drown, make up a cock-and-bull story about how
they'd been snatched, and then attempt to get a lighter sentence on a
lesser charge because they were only doin' what they couldn't help
themselves from doin'.

Susan Smith was not "only partially responsible for her actions" by
any stretch of any imagination, including your oh-so-fertile one.

    You can grow great shrooms in George's imagination...

RE         <<< Note 37.450 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I do believe you've missed my point. Perhaps I should state it more bluntly.
>Most (more than 98%) of the folks incarcerated for violent crimes should have
>had the death penalty assigned to them as far as I'm concerned. 

  Are you saying that if someone punches someone in the mouth in a bar and
because it's their 2nd offense they would normally get 30 days in the slammer
that instead you think they should get the death penalty?

  If someone knocks down a little old lady and takes her purse they should get
the chair?

>And I certainly won't buy any crap about one
>having the rational part of their brain so confused by trauma that they
>can premeditatively strap two innocent children in a car, drive it into
>a lake and watch them drown, make up a cock-and-bull story ...

  Why not? When you were smoking and ran out of cigarettes weren't there times
when you put on your coat, strapped yourself into a car, drove to the store,
used the rational part of your brain to calculate the price asked by the
clerk, directed your fingers to open the pack, take out a butt, put the right
end into your mouth, ...?

  How can you tell me that you were able to carry out all of that activity and
still claim that it was not a rational and calculated decision to smoke
cigarettes? 

  George

RE           <<< Note 37.451 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    You can grow great shrooms in George's imagination...

  "Ha, Ha, Ha, the Monkey Doctor"

  It's all you've got,
  George

>  Are you saying that if someone punches someone in the mouth in a bar and
>because it's their 2nd offense they would normally get 30 days in the slammer
>that instead you think they should get the death penalty?
>  If someone knocks down a little old lady and takes her purse they should get
>the chair?

Yes - that's exactly what I'm saying. People who commit crimes involving
antisocial behaviors such as the commission of violence against others
should be removed from society permanently, and I favor the death penalty
as the means of doing that. I've said it in here before, but I repeat that
now for your benefit. If we did this more often, we'd see far fewer instances
of these types of crimes. Either that or we'd have the satisfaction of
ridding society of the trash that feels it's justified in forcing itself
upon others in this fashion. Better that than making them guests of society
for the rest of their born days, or releasing them to do it again.

>  How can you tell me that you were able to carry out all of that activity and
>still claim that it was not a rational and calculated decision to smoke
>cigarettes? 

It most definitely _was_ a rational and calculated decision to smoke. And
the decision to stop was likewise such a rational decision. And in both cases
I was always fully responsible for my actions and had both the choice and
the ability to act otherwise. And Susan Smith's decision to marinate her kids
in the lake for several weeks before confessing to the crime was likewise
a "rational" (in the same sense that she knew what she was doing and for what
purpose) decision for which she was also fully responsible.

>Yes - that's exactly what I'm saying. People who commit crimes involving
>antisocial behaviors such as the commission of violence against others
>should be removed from society permanently, and I favor the death penalty
>as the means of doing that.

Several hundred years ago, Thomas More argued quite effectively that executing
thieves increases murder.  Why not kill the person you've just robbed and
eliminate a witness?  The book's called "Utopia."

As with most classical literature, I can't claim much familiarity with
it, but I believe that it takes a different type of person to commit
a murder than to simply mug someone. And, I believe that knowledge of
a death penalty for ones actions would act as a deterrent to engage
in those actions for that subset of humanity.

There are a large number of people in this country who do not cheat
on their taxes specifically because they are not willing to risk the
punishment incumbent in doing so, and not in any way because they
think it's morally repugnant to keep their own money.

Punishment CAN be an effective deterrent, the writings of celebrated
authors notwithstanding.

RE         <<< Note 37.454 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

  You want the death penalty for punching someone in a bar?

  Under your system there'd be no one left to commit crimes. Why not just nuke
the planet. The untimate death penalty. "If there were no life, there'd be no
crime". 

>It most definitely _was_ a rational and calculated decision to smoke. 

  Now wait a minute. You told me that you tried to stop smoking for 27 years.
Now you are telling me you didn't try to stop smoking until that one day when
you finally quit. Make up your mind, did you or did you not want to smoke during
those 27 years? 

  What ever you decide, if it is your feeling that we should have the death
penalty for things like bar fights and if you also believe that anyone can stop
smoking any time they want then I'd hardly call your position main stream. 
Maybe main stream for SOAPBOX, but not main stream for the real world.

  George

>  You want the death penalty for punching someone in a bar?
>  Under your system there'd be no one left to commit crimes. Why not just nuke
>the planet. The untimate death penalty. "If there were no life, there'd be no
>crime". 

Hardly, George. Millions of people go through their entire lives without
commiting crimes of violence against others. At least that's the case with
most of the folks I hang out with. If you hang out with a more sanguine
bunch, that's your problem. Hanging out in bars, and, further, becoming
the agressor in a barroom brawl is an activity in which any number of people
I can name wouldn't be involved.

>  Now wait a minute. You told me that you tried to stop smoking for 27 years.
>Now you are telling me you didn't try to stop smoking until that one day when
>you finally quit. Make up your mind, did you or did you not want to smoke during
>those 27 years? 

No - go back and read what I quite clearly said. I said that there were
numerous times over the course of 27 years when I attempted to quit but
under none of those circumstances except the last, did I adopt an attitude
(i.e. make a conscious, rational decision) not to ever smoke again. The
other "attempts" were of the ilk "Let's see if I can quit. Gee, I really
want one bad. I guess I can't. <light_up>". What's so difficult to
comprehend here? Or is it just the fact that you're having difficulty
refuting what's being presented in a logical fashion so it's time to
resort to obfuscation?

>  What ever you decide, if it is your feeling that we should have the death
>penalty for things like bar fights and if you also believe that anyone can stop
>smoking any time they want then I'd hardly call your position main stream. 

I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not you feel my opinions are
mainstream, George. But I most definitely feel that the commission of
violent crime (including starting a barroom brawl) is worthy of the
death penalty. As far as quitting smoking, I never claimed anywhere
that "anyone can stop smoking any time", but I will continue to maintain
that many people who truly want to stop, can successfully do so when
they decide to pursue the matter seriously. Were that not the case,
there would be no one who had ever quit smoking, correct?

RE         <<< Note 37.458 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Hanging out in bars, and, further, becoming
>the aggressor in a barroom brawl is an activity in which any number of people
>I can name wouldn't be involved.

  So we shouldn't hang out in bars. And if some drunk gets up and starts making
insulting remarks about your sweetie and you lose your temper, haul off and
pop him one, you should get the death penalty?

  Wow!

>The
>other "attempts" were of the ilk "Let's see if I can quit. Gee, I really
>want one bad. I guess I can't. <light_up>". What's so difficult to
>comprehend here? 

  You can't what? You can't quit? Why couldn't you quit? What stopped you
during those 27 years?

  Yes or no, during those 27 years did you rationally believe that you should
smoke or did you rationally believe you should not smoke?

  If you believed you should not smoke, what kept you smoking?

  George

    .459
        
    hang out in bars all you like.  but hold your temper.  if some jerk
    insults you, try holding your temper.  that's what civilized adults do.
    
    if you fly off the handle like a testosterone-poisoned adolescent and
    punch him out, you can damn well bet that no jury is going to find
    sufficient provocation.  and if you kill him, you are guilty of, at the
    very least, manslaughter.

RE              <<< Note 37.460 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    if you fly off the handle like a testosterone-poisoned adolescent and
>    punch him out, you can damn well bet that no jury is going to find
>    sufficient provocation.  and if you kill him, you are guilty of, at the
>    very least, manslaughter.

  But even if you only bruise his lip you should get the death penalty!!??

  On one hand we have someone who on one occasion lost his temper and popped
someone in the nose for calling his sweetie a whore. On the other hand we have
someone who wants the government to impose violent death on millions of people
for losing their temper. 

  And you are calling the guy in the bar violent?

  God love those conservatives, you love to hate and you love to kill but
of course it all has to be neat and legal.

  George

>  So we shouldn't hang out in bars.

I don't. Many of the folks with whom I socialize don't. If others care
to, that's fine by me, unless they want to be the agressor in a brawl.

> And if some drunk gets up and starts making
>insulting remarks about your sweetie and you lose your temper, haul off and
>pop him one, you should get the death penalty?
>  Wow!

It depends upon a number of things, among which are whether or not you feel
that by popping him one, you will be judged guilty of a crime, or whether
by doing so you are justified in claiming self-defense, which is not a crime,
and you feel you can make it stick due to witnesses, etc. Personally,
however, I would gather up my sweetie and leave the establishment before
I'd throw the first punch. I'm funny that way, but I don't have a lawyer
for a sweetie.

>>The
>>other "attempts" were of the ilk "Let's see if I can quit. Gee, I really
>>want one bad. I guess I can't. <light_up>". What's so difficult to
>>comprehend here? 
>
>  You can't what? You can't quit? Why couldn't you quit? What stopped you
>during those 27 years?

Yes - during those 27 years in any attempt to quit, I "decided that I couldn't".
This decision was more specifically a realization that at that time, I didn't
really want to quit. What I wanted, was to have a cigarette, and continue
smoking. What stopped me (from quitting) was the continuing desire to smoke
and the lack of commitment to quit. (Are you still with me?) I knew that
full well. I knew that that was a decision I was making on my own for which
I was responsible. You know, never once did an uncontrollable muscle spasm
cause my clenched fists to bring cigarette and lighter in front of my face
while I grimaced in disgust at some unearthly apparition which had taken
over my motor activities. Not once. I did it all of my own volition. Imagine
that. It might also be worthwhile to mention that in any of these attempts
to quit, I wasn't trying to quit because I'd decided to do so, but rather
because someone else had decided that it was something I ought to do. Rule
number 2 about quitting smoking (or anything else for that matter) -

	 If you think you can do it because someone else wants you to
	but you haven't personally decided that you're committed to doing
	it for yourself, you will most likely fail. (This is not tough
	stuff.)

>  Yes or no, during those 27 years did you rationally believe that you should
>smoke or did you rationally believe you should not smoke?

Define "rationally believe". I certainly knew that it would be wise to quit.
But I lacked the conviction to do so, because I clearly preferred to continue
to smoke. I would guess that that means I rationally believed that I should
smoke. I certainly knew that I desired to smoke a hell of a lot more than
I desired to quit. Or, to put it another way, I wasn't serious about quitting.
(Still with me?)

>  If you believed you should not smoke, what kept you smoking?

Desire and lack of conviction. (Where have I heard that before?) Then, when
I decided to finally quit, I had the conviction, and I denied the desire
until it was no longer a problem for me. Now, even that isn't entirely
gone, to the extent that if you give me a pot of coffee to consume in
a short period, it will drive me into a frenzy of desire for a cigarette.
However, I can also rationally conclude that that would be a pretty stupid
desire to cave in to after all of this time, not to mention that it would
probably turn me green and bring back a miserable cough that took me months
to rid myself of. Ergo, no prob.

George,
   Just out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that the appropriate
  action, when a drunk pokes an insult at your sweetie, is to take a
  swing at him?

>  And you are calling the guy in the bar violent?

Well, I certainly wouldn't call him Shoiley.
 (<raises_eyebrows><Flicks_cigar>)

Yes - I'd call him violent. What do you call it when someone strikes
another human being? "Just funnin' around"?

    Spanking?

RE         <<< Note 37.462 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Define "rationally believe". I certainly knew that it would be wise to quit.
>But I lacked the conviction to do so, because I clearly preferred to continue
>to smoke. I would guess that that means I rationally believed that I should
>smoke. I certainly knew that I desired to smoke a hell of a lot more than
>I desired to quit. Or, to put it another way, I wasn't serious about quitting.
>(Still with me?)

  Yes I'm with you. One part of your mind capable of strategic thinking came to
a rational conclusion that smoking was bad for you. But that same part of your
mind that does strategic thinking chose not to fight to control the tactical
part of your mind capable of putting on a coat, strapping yourself into your
car, driving to the store, and buying cigarettes. 

  That is because another part of your mind which was driving the addiction had
strong control over that tactical part of your mind and caused that part of
your mind to keep smoking. 

  There came a time at the end of the 27 years when for some reason the
strategic part of your rational mind was able to wrestle control of the tactical
part away from that part which drove the addiction. 

  Now you may laugh at make jokes about aliens struggling to control you mind
but at the same time you admit that some sort of processing was going on
between your ears that was driving you to smoke. That part of your mind was was
not completely controlled by your rational knowledge yet it was capable of
controlling the part of your mind that send you to the store for a new pack when
you ran out. 

  Note: I don't mean to single you out and criticize you for smoking, I'm only
using you as an example because you brought it up. If you would rather I not
talk about you personally let me know and I'll be glad to use a hypothetical
smoker instead.

  George

RE         <<< Note 37.463 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>George,
>   Just out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that the appropriate
>  action, when a drunk pokes an insult at your sweetie, is to take a
>  swing at him?

  No, losing your temper and hauling off to punch someone is not right in my
opinion and in fact I've never done such a thing. However I think that the
idea of imposing the death penalty on someone who punches someone in a bar
fight is very extreme and unwarranted since most fights of that sort result
in little more than a bruised lip.

  Were we to put such people to death as quickly as you suggest we would have a
blood bath that would rival the holocaust. It would result in millions of deaths
and in the process no doubt hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths would
result as well.

  It seems ludicrous to me that we aspire to join the "Final Solution", Stalin's
Purge, The Killing Fields of Cambodia, and other examples of mass genocide
in the name of stemming violence.

  George

    .467
    
    > idea of imposing the death penalty on someone who punches someone in a bar
    > fight is very extreme and unwarranted
    
    yes, well, there was a time, not so long ago, that the insult phase
    would end in a meeting in the park, from which it was usual that only
    one participant would walk away.  you may notice that there were a
    surprisingly small number of such incidents, given the population of
    the time.  could it be because the potential insulters were aware that
    they could be called to answer for their actions instead of simply
    having the amusing opportunity to pound someone to a pulp in a bar?
    
    an armed society is a polite society, george.  and concomitant with the
    arming of a society is a refusal to tolerate atavistic behavior -  a
    concept that bleeding-heart liberals such as you are simply don't
    understand.  if someone murders his own kids, or even your kids,
    rememember that he's just a victim, too, and make nice to him because
    it's not really his fault.  what a crock.

RE              <<< Note 37.468 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    an armed society is a polite society, george.  and concomitant with the
>    arming of a society is a refusal to tolerate atavistic behavior -  a
>    concept that bleeding-heart liberals such as you are simply don't
>    understand.  

  So let me get this straight. If I take the position that I don't want to
impose the death penalty on everyone who throws a fist in a bar and if I am
against that because it would result in mass genocide that would rival the
holocaust, that makes me a "bleeding heart liberal"?

  George

	I agree with George <---  oooh, that was hard.  Death penalty
	for throwing a punch in a bar is absurd.

    
      "If I take the position that...then I am a bleeding heart liberal."
    
      George, at this point, you are a BHL if you sneeze...
    
      bb

    i don't propose that the state apply the death penalty for a punch in a
    bar.  but, unlike meowski, i do propose that perps of whatever stripe
    be held accountable for their actions.
    
    there is a differnce between accountability and responsibility. 
    sometimes the perp isn't entirely responsible, due to any number of
    possible mitigating circumstances, but the perp is still the one who
    did the crime, and the perp should do the time.  or have the danny
    deever done to him/her, as appropriate.
    
    even a potential perp who isn't entirely responsible for his/her state
    of mind is most likely well enough in control to understand the
    consequences of the crime.  in susan smith's case, you buy freedom from
    your kids so you can marry your lover, you better be prepared to pay
    for that freedom for the rest of your life - that kind of freedom has
    a very high price tag.

>   ...but, unlike meowski, i do propose that perps of whatever stripe
    be held accountable for their actions.

    So do I.

RE              <<< Note 37.472 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    in susan smith's case, you buy freedom from
>    your kids so you can marry your lover, you better be prepared to pay
>    for that freedom for the rest of your life - that kind of freedom has
>    a very high price tag.

  This has never been proven. What evidence I've seen indicates more a botched
murder suicide rather than premeditated murder to free herself up for a boy
friend.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 37.471 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      "If I take the position that...then I am a bleeding heart liberal."
>    
>      George, at this point, you are a BHL if you sneeze...
    
  Then I hope you won't take offense if occasionally I brand you and others
who take that position as "redneck conservatives".

  George

>>  This has never been proven. What evidence I've seen indicates more a botched
>>murder suicide rather than premeditated murder to free herself up for a boy
>>friend.

	"botched murder suicide"?  well that's about as "botched" as it
	gets.  what's the evidence for that, just out of curiosity?

    .474
    
    > What evidence I've seen indicates
    
    george, your interpretations of evidence are probably more creative
    than any othes i've ever seen.  suicide?  then why wasn't she IN the
    car?  get real.

    
    George, one generally needs to be south of the Mason Dixon line and west 
    of the Mississippi to be called a "redneck".  There's got to be a more
    accurate description for northeastern, male, down-to-earth
    conservatives.
    
    jeff

    >george, your interpretations of evidence are probably more creative
    >than any othes i've ever seen.  suicide?  then why wasn't she IN the
    >car?  get real.
    
     It seems consistent with his other rantings on the subject in that
    they are equally grounded in reality. Ok, let's see, now he prances
    around crying "monkey doctor! monkey doctor!"
    
     Botched murder-suicide, indeed. Patently absurd, given the facts. I
    think even Susan Smith would reaise her eyebrows over that gem.

RE    <<< Note 37.476 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	"botched murder suicide"?  well that's about as "botched" as it
>	gets.  what's the evidence for that, just out of curiosity?

  Well 1st of all, as the SOAPBOX representative of the Susan Smith defense
team I don't have to prove it was a botched murder suicide. All I have to do
is raise reasonable doubt. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that her motive was the relationship with her boyfriend
and that the murders were premeditated.

  So as evidence I have her previous suicide attempt and the fact that she had
never shown any abusive tendencies toward the children in the past from which
she would benefit. 

  Also there was a report that she claimed it was a botched murder suicide
attempt. I heard heresy evidence through a reporter that a cop said she wanted
to kill herself but wanted to take the kids with her because she didn't feel
they would survive without her but she botched the attempt and the car either
rolled away without her or she was thrown from the car. 

  Now granted my evidence is thin, but then so is the evidence that the motive
was getting rid of the kids for the new boyfriend. And if there is any doubt
in the mind of the jury then they have a duty to assume a lesser charge that
would go along with a murder suicide.

  George

     Who wants to bet that her confession eliminates murder-suicide as a
    possible motive?

>>  Well 1st of all, as the SOAPBOX representative of the Susan Smith defense
>>team I don't have to prove it was a botched murder suicide.

	I'm aware of that, George.  You said there was evidence, I was just
	asking what it was.  Thanks.

>>I heard heresy evidence

	You did?  ;>

RE           <<< Note 37.482 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Who wants to bet that her confession eliminates murder-suicide as a
>    possible motive?

  I bet it doesn't. In fact I'd move to toss out the entire confession because
it was coerced. Susan Smith was clearly not in a state of mind to understand
the consequences of confessing without a lawyer present. If she was she would
have made a deal protecting herself from the death penalty. 

  In fact, it's possible that the reason that she confessed without getting
such a deal was in itself a suicide attempt and is evidence that she is
suicidal. 

  George 

.481

Oh, brother.

First you write something like that, and then you wonder why people
have little respect for the legal profession.

 {thud}

  Why am I not surprised that the conservatives in our midst feel our judicial
system should be changed such that the accused is not entitled to a defense? 

  George

    Susan "Fry Baby" Smith aside, I figure you folks should just bring
    your Dr. Kevorkian chemistry sets and c'mon on over to some of the
    road houses that I've been known to hang at... you're gonna have to
    off the entire clientele, me included, I'm afraid.
    
    I would suggest, however, that at least intone your respect for
    Harley Davidson before you begin, just to make sure everyone is
    in a good mood.
    
    -b

>>  Why am I not surprised that the conservatives in our midst feel our judicial
>>system should be changed such that the accused is not entitled to a defense? 

	Why am I not surprised that you make such idiotic generalizations
	time after time?

>>    Susan "Fry Baby" Smith aside, I figure you folks should just bring
>>    your Dr. Kevorkian chemistry sets and c'mon on over to some of the

	what "folks"?

    >	what "folks"?
    
    Them that's proposing we toast repeat bar-brawl offenders; actually,
    that was over in the crime and punishment note, wasn't it. Sorry,
    I read it yesterday, but didn't have time to respond to it until
    today and got a bit confused over which law and odor note was which.
    
    -b

	That was here, but I thought it was just Jack that wanted to
	toast 'em.  Maybe I missed something.

    >	That was here, but I thought it was just Jack that wanted to
    >	toast 'em.  Maybe I missed something.
    
    Nope. It's much more likely that I did (missed something).
    
    -b

Yes. 'Twere I. I have exactly zero tolerance for unwarranted violence.
With the exception of spanking my oldest daughter on one occasion
mentioned elsewhere in here, and being goaded into a fist fight with
a kid when I was in the seventh grade, I've never lifted a hand to another
human being in my life, and I don't properly understand what motivates
others to do in an aggressive (i.e. first swipe) manner. Passing it off
as a "minor offense" because only a lip was bruised is inappropriate
in my estimation. If one cannot contain their temper in a civilized
manner, one has no business being part of society.

	Jack, couldn't it be somewhere in between minor offense
	and death penalty offense, at least??  I mean, holy cow,
	man is an aggressive creature - one incident of flying off the
	handle, possibly under the influence of alcohol, and
	<zzzzzap!>??  I'm astounded!

    Well, Jack, first of all, you're completely ignoring the concept
    of "an eye for an eye". What you're proposing is more like a
    "head for a lip". While I support the death penalty, I support
    it for murder, particularly premeditated murder, aggravated
    murder (murder with rape/kidnapping/etc.), and multiple/serial
    murder.
    
    No offense, but to apply it broad brush is simply ridiculous.
    
    The idea that you want to execute everyone who isn't as non-
    violent as you is, um, slightly ironic shall we say?
    
    -b

My problem is, where do we draw the line? So we let a bar room brawl
resulting in a bruised lip get by as a minor offense. Then, on which
side of the minor/major line do we put the following?

	Bar room brawl resulting in a black eye
	Bar room brawl resulting in a cut ear
	Bar room brawl resulting in a broken nose
	Bar room brawl resulting in a broken wrist
	Bar room brawl resulting in five cracked ribs
	Bar room brawl resulting in a severed ear
	Bar room brawl resulting in two broken arms
	Bar room brawl resulting in massive head injures
	Bar room brawl resulting in major cuts from bottle glass
	Bar room brawl resulting in a ruptured spleen
	Bar room brawl resulting in dismemberment
	Bar room brawl resulting in loss of sight or hearing
	Bar room brawl resulting in death

Yes - I can recognize a difference in severity. But if we punished any
violence equivalently, the message would be quite clear, and we could
dispense with the lack of justice we have today thanks to George's
pals in the legal profession who will be eternally attempting to get
that line moved further and further down the list until it's virtually
not there at all.

George brought up giving the chair to someone for grabbing an old lady's
purse. My response is, yes, damnit, why not? Do you think the old lady
feels any better about it knowing that the guy gets a slap on the wrist?
I'll grant you that even the old lady may not desire to see the guy fry,
but I don't share the compunction. Punks. Screw 'em all.

I don't limit it just to cases of murder. I limit it to cases where the
intent to forcibly harm another individual was clearly present. That includes
battery, assault, rape, domestic violence, spousal/child abuse, etc. The
key point to me is intent to forcibly harm another. Isn't that what "violent
crime" is?

	Punching someone in a bar isn't a violent crime - it's an
	uncivilized act. 
	If you're going to fry someone for stealing a woman's purse,
	are you also going to fry someone for stealing a pencil from	
	the five and ten?  Death to anyone and everyone who steps
	out of line?  Yikes. 
	There have always been lines drawn - that's the only fair
	and reasonable thing to do.

    
        Jeeps, Jack !  You're disqualifying yourself !  You need a
     visit from the Ghost of Boxbashes future.
    
        bb

 Susan Smith Snarf

>  Yes I'm with you. One part of your mind capable of strategic thinking came to
>a rational conclusion that smoking was bad for you. But that same part of your
>mind that does strategic thinking chose not to fight to control the tactical
>part of your mind capable of putting on a coat, strapping yourself into your
>car, driving to the store, and buying cigarettes. 

Not quite. Actually, that same part of my mind capable of strategic thinking
said "It may be bad for you, but since you still enjoy it more than the
idea of quitting, why not bag the quitting part?" Then, since I tend to try
to be agreeable, I went along with that concept.

>  That is because another part of your mind which was driving the addiction had
>strong control over that tactical part of your mind and caused that part of
>your mind to keep smoking. 

Er, no. It was because I really wanted to smoke, not quit.

>  There came a time at the end of the 27 years when for some reason the
>strategic part of your rational mind was able to wrestle control of the tactical
>part away from that part which drove the addiction. 

No - actually there came a time at the end of 27 years when I'd successfully
gotten myself to the point that the only time I smoked was when I was drinking
a beer. And I then said, "This is just plain stupid."

>  Now you may laugh at make jokes about aliens struggling to control you mind
>but at the same time you admit that some sort of processing was going on
>between your ears that was driving you to smoke. That part of your mind was was
>not completely controlled by your rational knowledge yet it was capable of
>controlling the part of your mind that send you to the store for a new pack when
>you ran out. 

George, I could have sworn that this started out by your claim that Susan
Smith potentially was unable to help herself for what she did due to
traumatization which resulted from abuse by her stepfather, and hence she
shouldn't be held totally accountable for her actions. Then you went on
to discuss the similarity to an addiction. I went on to point out that,
at least in my mind, the addiction stuff is nonsense, as witnessed by the
facts that A) once I decided to quit smoking I proved that one can be successful
in so doing, and that B) Unless one is genuine in their desire to do so
(i.e. while they do not have that desire) one will probably not succeed.
It's very much like saying "I will now walk from ZKO1 to ZKO3" and then
deciding to turn around and go back when one reaches the cafe. The processing
that was going on between my ears for 27 years was nothing more than a very
conscious desire to smoke rather than anything else. I do not attribute
it to a portion of my will subconsciously winning out over another part,
any more than I would so do if I consciously decided to turn around and
walk the other way in the cafeteria.

>  Note: I don't mean to single you out and criticize you for smoking, I'm only
>using you as an example because you brought it up. If you would rather I not
>talk about you personally let me know and I'll be glad to use a hypothetical
>smoker instead.

Doesn't bother me a bit.

No - not the chair for stealing a pencil from McCrory's. For violent
crime. There's nothing violent about shoplifting any more than there
is about burglary without threat of life to the homeowner, or white
collar crime. I wouldn't even propose it for a case where a perp walks
up to you on the street and says "Give me your wallet" and you give it
to him. He's certainly guilty of theft, but not violence.

>>George brought up giving the chair to someone for grabbing an old lady's
>>purse. My response is, yes, damnit, why not?

   I'm confused now.  There was no mention of violence here.

>   I'm confused now.  There was no mention of violence here.

I made the suposition that grabbing her pruse prolly included knocking
her to the ground. If that were not the case, i.e. if he said "Give me
your purse" and she gave it to him, there would be no violence involved.
I further supposed that if she said "No", the next step would be violence.
If it were not (i.e. if he retreated looking for more agreeable prospects)
then I have no desire to toast him.

    
    So you think assault is non-violent?
    
    								-mr. bill

	So any instance of laying a hand on another adult is punishable
	by death?  What if two brothers are in a club drinking boilermakers,
	one says to the other "Mom always liked you best.", they
	start going at it trading insults, and then one off and slugs the
	other?	Death??

	This is too weird for words, Jack.  Really it is.
	I feel like I'm on "Candid Camera" or something. ;>

>    So you think assault is non-violent?

Is that the current definition of assault? Then, yes, I think it's non-violent
and retract my specific listing of it in a previous note. There's nothing
violent involved in saying "Give me your purse". There isn't anything violent
involved in saying "Listen, you SOB, give me your <RO> purse NOW!" There
isn't even anything violent involved in saying "Give me your <RO> purse
now or I'll split your head open", provided that no physical harm is inflicted
on another.

What? Have I got the definition of physical violence wrong, too?

Where do you propose drawing the line in such a way that the scumbag lawyers
and the corrupt courts can't later pervert your intent, Di?

I'm open to suggestions.

    
      This reminds me of something I was told about the country Sri
     Lanka, which had for a long time prior to its independence was
     the British colony of Ceylon.  At one point, a revolutionary
     government legislated the death penalty for using the older name
     of the place !  (I dunno if this is true, but it ought to be.)
    
      In America nobody really believes you can do mass executions.  It's
     not that we aren't casually cruel enough - we just aren't into that
     sort of discipline and organization.  So nobody seriously proposes
     the death penalty except for particularly grisly or heinous deeds.
    
      bb

Also, let's keep in mind that we're talking about violent _crime_. I
believe that presupposes that formal charges are filed and the matter
is taken to a court of law. What's the likelihood that one brother
is going to press charges against another? If he does, then that
qualifies as crime in my book. If he doesn't, that's a separate matter.

>Where do you propose drawing the line in such a way that the scumbag lawyers
>and the corrupt courts can't later pervert your intent, Di?

	If the problem is with "scumbag lawyers" (which btw, I don't happen
	to think includes _all_ lawyers) and "corrupt courts", then 
	that's what we should be reforming.  Not giving the death penalty
	to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an attitude problem.

>>What's the likelihood that one brother
>>is going to press charges against another?

	What's the likelihood that _anyone_ would press charges against
	another person for slugging them in a bar, knowing that the
	slugger will get the death penalty?  

    .498
    
    > Punching someone in a bar isn't a violent crime - it's an
    > uncivilized act.
    
    it's both.  battery is a felony.  which means it's a crime.  and if you
    think punching somebody isn't violent, you've never been punched.

    I picture this mommy standing over some kid really pissed because
    the kid decided to color her sofa with permanent markers -- with
    hand poised for a wallop to the back-side -- and the kid standing
    there grinning back holding up a picture of an electric chair.
    
    -b

>     sort of discipline and organization.  So nobody seriously proposes
>     the death penalty except for particularly grisly or heinous deeds.

I consider rape, and murder by any degree, and severe physical domestic
abuse, and beating someone senseless even though they aren't killed,
and a whole raft of other instances of physical abuse to be just as
grisly and heinous as 1st degree murder and just as punishable. I'd
rather see the less serious offenses of physically violent crime
punished in exactly the same way, than to leave another back door
for the stinking lawyers to use in order to get the guilty free or
reduced sentences.

I'm sorry - I don't see any workable alternatives. The system we have
says "you can step so far before we step further", but in actuality,
thanks to the "flexibility" of judgements and sentencing, most violent
offenders have a very clear understanding that they can actually go quite
a ways further. Propose to me a better plan. Or should we just continue
to put up with a bunch of violent antiosocial punks who can have their
way with society?

    
>>    it's both.  battery is a felony.  which means it's a crime.  and if you
>>    think punching somebody isn't violent, you've never been punched.

	yeah, okay, whatever you say.  i'm not going to get into the
	"violent" argument with you again.  fine - it's a violent crime.
	it shouldn't be punishable by death.

>	What's the likelihood that _anyone_ would press charges against
>	another person for slugging them in a bar, knowing that the
>	slugger will get the death penalty?  

If I were the one that was punched, it wouldn't stop me for a split second.

re: .514

I doubt that society would be likely to lump corporal punishment in with
violent crime, Brian. :^)

I similarly doubt (as is obvious from this discussion) that society would
be likely to go along with what I see as a solution here, so we can most
likely all relax.

In the same vein, I have zero confidence that any substantial reform is
likely to take place in the courts and the legal system to eliminate the
subversion that is currently rampant, with the result of what we observe
in our society today, so we can most likely all continue to expect to be
at the mercy of the punks and the Susan Smith's, etc. Not my idea of a
good time, I'll tell you.

>>If I were the one that was punched, it wouldn't stop me for a split second.

	Wow.  Just...wow.

    RE: .514
    
    Made me laugh it did :-). 

Well, I guess I'm funny that way, Di. I don't grant people the right
to take swings at me, and in return, I keep my hands to myself.

As far as I'm concerned, the type of person who does that sort of thing
is of no use to me or society. I would not hesitate to see them charged
and sentenced to death. The more interesting question is, how frequently
do you think you'd see folks doing this if they knew full well that it
might be their last voluntary act?

Now, we can go back to the Thomas More argument and assume that they'll
finish what they start for good measure, but then they'll be up for
murder 1. Do those that would take a swipe at someone in a bar automatically
become first degree murderers because they have nothing to lose? And if
so, what's the argument for keeping them around anyway?

    
    Um, are y'all sure that isn't Thomas Moore?
                                          ^^
    
    -b

    
    Bri, with your track record recently, are you SURE you want to pose
    that question 8^)?

I don't know, Brian. I was only using the same spelling Gerald used when he
introduced me to the man's concepts yesterday.

    >Bri, with your track record recently, are you SURE you want to pose
    >that question 8^)?
    
    Well, if you go back an look, I posed the question with all
    the confidence of someone sticking their toe in the ocean
    to see if they want to take a swim in January! :-)
    
    -b

    Aren't we getting rather far afield from the topic of Susan Smith?
    

Benjamin Moore, perhaps.

re: .526

Susan Who?

    
>>    Um, are y'all sure that isn't Thomas Moore?

	Um, yes.

    
    Wouldn't ya know it. The dang fool couldn't even spell his
    own name... :-) :-) :-)
    
    Now, pardon me, I have to go find a fresh rock to crawl under... :-)
    
    -b

 Susan Smith people, Susan Smith!

>>Well, I guess I'm funny that way, Di. I don't grant people the right
>>to take swings at me, and in return, I keep my hands to myself.

	I think this is a very commendable attitude, indeed, Jack.

>>As far as I'm concerned, the type of person who does that sort of thing
>>is of no use to me or society. I would not hesitate to see them charged
>>and sentenced to death. 

	This is where you start to lose me.  ;>  Hotheads abound.
	I can't see killing 'em, especially with no regard to what
	precipitated their actions.  
	They could have _lots_ of use to society.

>>The more interesting question is, how frequently
>>do you think you'd see folks doing this if they knew full well that it
>>might be their last voluntary act?

	It's not that interesting a question, since the answer is
	pretty obvious, I would think.

>	It's not that interesting a question, since the answer is
>	pretty obvious, I would think.

Well, if you get the same obvious answer I do, that's the merit
I see in the proposal.

    sheesh... and i thought our system (however flawed some of its
    aspects are) was based on the "punishment befitting the crime"
    principle.
    
    putting someone to death for punching someone? well, someone pointed
    out that there are hotheads who handle issues physically. 
    
    i guess Mr. Delbaso is an intellectual hothead... maybe a Serbian
    citizenship is the answer.
    
    Chip

	His object all sublime

		He will achieve in time

			To make the punishment fit the crime

				The punishment fit the crime.

    When I wuz 2 my folks (G&S Freaks back in the '40s) taught me this, 90%
    successfully...  I believe they have me on a home-brew 78rpm record
    singing "The Punish Can Fit the Crime"...
                                    

	Dan'l, my parental units made a similar type recording of my brother
	when he was two, singing "I'm Nookin' Over a Four Years Older".
	Must be something with you Haahvid grads born in.. that year you
	guys were both born in. ;>

Er, you dropped the second "l" again, Chip. :^)

Intellectual hothead? Well, I've never really considered myself much of an
intellectual anything, but I suppose . . . 

I'm tired of the violence in our society and I'm even more tired of the
people who commit it and the judicial/legal system that gets them softer
rather than tougher punishment. This entire idea that Susan Smith should
be treated "somewhat leniently" because she couldn't help herself burns
me up. It's just one more kick in the butt to society, heaped on top of
all the other punks who are, on a daily basis, for all intents and
purposes, getting off scot(sp?) free.

Somebody punches someone in a bar and they get a suspended sentence and the
next week they're back in the same bar punching someone else, so they get
30 days and the next month they're doing it again. It's obvious that they
aren't learning anything, except that they can get away with it - that
society has virtually sanctioned their actions. We've already got some
level of agreement that if we were to apply capital punishment to them
instead, A) They wouldn't do it again (duh), and B) Many others wouldn't
even do it a first time.

Now, as I think I've said, I do recognize a difference in severity between
bruising someone's lip and killing someone. I do NOT recognize a difference
in severity between killing someone and raping someone or beating someone
senseless. But as long as we've got a judicial/legal system that can keep
moving the line between what's bad enough to get hung for and what isn't,
society is going to continue to be kicked in the butt by slime and their
slime attorneys.

What I propose is without question severe. I also fully realize that it
will most likely never be accepted by American society. The alternative
I see is what we have now - slime punks having their way.

I'll repeat - I'm open to other solutions. If anyone has one, I'd be more
than willing to listen to it. If not, then please admit that you're perfectly
comfortable with the status quo and it's OK with you for the violence
to continue.

RE         <<< Note 37.494 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>With the exception of spanking my oldest daughter on one occasion
>mentioned elsewhere in here, and being goaded into a fist fight with
>a kid when I was in the seventh grade, I've never lifted a hand to another
>human being in my life, ...

  Whooooo, according to your own rules at this point you should be strapped
into old sparkey and jolted off to the great beyond.

  Why should you be allowed this type of violence if you are going to impose
the death penalty on others who do this sort of thing?

  George

Oh, and with respect to shifting the violence from the individual to
society, I figgered we could off them ala Soylent Green. Put 'em
on a nice comfy gurney in an airconditioned omni-max theater while
lethally injecting them. 

:^)

>  Whooooo, according to your own rules at this point you should be strapped
>into old sparkey and jolted off to the great beyond.


For which offense, George? I already said that I didn't see corporal
punishment as violent crime, nor did I see self defense as such.

    
    TTWA : What are the word-origins of the expression "scot free" ?
    
      bb

    Hate to sound like a nag folks, but couldn't this discussion be
    taken to the Crime and Punishment note and let the rest of us
    get back to speculatin' about Susan Smith?
    
    

    .538 i'm with you 100% about being fed up with crime. i even agree
    with your point on habitually violent crime (even if it's just a
    pop in the snout). the legal system and law eforcement do not
    (and sometimes cannot) adequately deal with these idiots.
    
    death is a little severe for some unprovoked fisticuffs. how 'bout
    a broken leg?  :-)
    
    Chip[ 

>>Now, as I think I've said, I do recognize a difference in severity between
>>bruising someone's lip and killing someone.

	But not in the punishment that should be meted out?

>>I'll repeat - I'm open to other solutions. If anyone has one, I'd be more
>>than willing to listen to it. If not, then please admit that you're perfectly
>>comfortable with the status quo and it's OK with you for the violence
>>to continue.

	So... not condoning the death penalty for any crime involving
	battery and not having a solution other than gradual reform in 
	the courts means that one is perfectly happy with the status quo?
	No, Jack, that's nonsense.

         <<< Note 37.501 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I went on to point out that,
>at least in my mind, the addiction stuff is nonsense, as witnessed by the
>facts that A) once I decided to quit smoking I proved that one can be successful
>in so doing, and that B) Unless one is genuine in their desire to do so
>(i.e. while they do not have that desire) one will probably not succeed.

  Regardless of what we decide about your thinking during the 27 years you were
smoking, the fact is your case is not typical. Everything I've observed about
smokers and everything I've read about smoking indicates that it takes most
people a long time to quit even after they have made the decision to quit. 

  Because of this it seems clear to me that the part of the human brain that
does strategic thinking is not always in charge of the part of the human brain
that does tactical thinking. I've seen, heard about, and read research about
too many people who despite the fact that they have decided not to smoke, put
on their jacket, strap themselves into their car, drive to the store, and buy
cigarettes.

  To me that indicates that the the part of the brain that makes strategic
decisions is not completely in control of the part of the brain that is both
capable and responsible for performing rather complex activity. 

  George

>	But not in the punishment that should be meted out?

The punishments we currently impose don't seem to work, though. I'll
meet you half way and start with Chip's broken leg plan, though. :^)

>	So... not condoning the death penalty for any crime involving
>	battery and not having a solution other than gradual reform in 
>	the courts means that one is perfectly happy with the status quo?
>	No, Jack, that's nonsense.

The problem I see is that gradual reform in the courts A) will likely never
happen and B) will simply allow the violence to continue until it's
completed. What has that solved?

Let's face it, though, the whole thing is nonsense in the respect that
what I'm proposing won't be done.

What's your proposal for a guaranteed effective reform? Let's begin
discussing something that perhaps could work. (And I wouldn't be opposed
to doing it in Crime and Punishment. Do you suppose anyone would be
good enough to move some stuff over there? :^)

re: .546,George

> the fact is your case is not typical

Well, granted the data sample is small, but as it was a personal experience,
you won't mind if I hold it in more credence that whatever you've read, will
you?

RE         <<< Note 37.548 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Well, granted the data sample is small, but as it was a personal experience,
>you won't mind if I hold it in more credence that whatever you've read, will
>you?

  To me it makes sense to consider both your experience and the vast pool of
data showing the expreiences of others.

  George

    
    I believe that if she is found guilty, she should be executed for her
    crimes. I haven't been following this case at all lately, is the
    prosecution seeking the death penalty?? I would hope that they would
    in this matter.
    
    Mark

    
    <------
    Mark,
    
    After she's found guilty, she should have an appeal
    
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal
    an appeal

RE          <<< Note 37.550 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>

>    I believe that if she is found guilty, she should be executed for her
>    crimes. I haven't been following this case at all lately, is the
>    prosecution seeking the death penalty?? I would hope that they would
>    in this matter.
    
  Yes, they are asking for the death penalty.

  Susan Smith's ex-husband just announced that he is writing a book. He claims
that his reason for writing the book is that public sentiment is beginning to
move back toward Susan Smith. He claims that some of the money from the book
will go to charity but he didn't say how much.

  Susan Smith is an extremely sympathetic defendant. The trial should be on TV
(the timing is about right it should be starting about the same time O.J. is
wrapping up) and after weeks of seeing this small frail woman weeping through
her trial I don't believe many will have the stomach for seeing her executed. 

  George

    
    I don't think most people have sympathy for Susan Smith at all.
    
    jeff

RE         <<< Note 37.553 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>    I don't think most people have sympathy for Susan Smith at all.
    
  Maybe, maybe not. Susan Smith's husband seems to think sympathy is swinging
her way and he seemed to be suggesting that there were public opinion polls
that backed him up.

  Maybe your polls are better than his. Perhaps you should send him what ever
information you have.

  George

    
    OK, people who previously believed that Susan Smith, if convicted,
    should receive the death penalty, but now feel otherwise raise
    your hands...
    
    There, I don't see anyone...
    

>  Susan Smith is an extremely sympathetic defendant. The trial should be on TV
>(the timing is about right it should be starting about the same time O.J. is
>wrapping up) and after weeks of seeing this small frail woman weeping through
>her trial I don't believe many will have the stomach for seeing her executed. 

I'll wager you the opposite. I'll wager you that if they were to sell tickets
to both the trial and the execution, they could make more money for the charity
than her ex-'s book will ever hope to make.

RE         <<< Note 37.556 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I'll wager you the opposite. I'll wager you that if they were to sell tickets
>to both the trial and the execution, they could make more money for the charity
>than her ex-'s book will ever hope to make.

  Well that's not really the opposite.

  I predict that polls will show that the general population will have more
sympathy for Susan Smith after the trial.

  Selling tickets to her execution would not be a sample of the general
population, rather it would test the intensity of the relatively small but
vocal group of hate mongers.

  George

    you're really obsessed with the H word.

>>>  Susan Smith is an extremely sympathetic defendant.

	this should be in the make-up-a-fact-friday topic.

    >>>  Susan Smith is an extremely sympathetic defendant.
    
    Thus sayeth the alternatively clued.
    

  Thus sayeth Susan Smith's husband. That's why he's writing the book. And
most people haven't even seen her on TV yet. 

  Think about it, right now hardly anyone sees her except for small clips on
the news now and then. Once the trial comes on we will constantly see this
small meek woman quietly weeping while large men in gray suits call for her
violent death. Yes the hard line right wingers will hang in there but she's
going to win back the middle. 

  Look at it this way. People lose kids all the time but this woman captured
the hearts of the country because deliberate or not, she has a natural ability
to work a camera. She's going to do it again. In fact she's already doing it
which is what has the pro-death side, lead by her husband, mobilizing to take
action. 

  I'll bet anything that right now the dream team is kicking their shins blue
wishing they could trade O.J. for this case.

  George

    
    "pro-death, led by her husband"?  George you're a frekin loon.

RE    <<< Note 37.562 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

    
>    "pro-death, led by her husband"?  George you're a frekin loon.


  Her husband is on record as supporting her conviction and execution.

  George

>  Look at it this way. People lose kids all the time but this woman captured
>the hearts of the country because deliberate or not, she has a natural ability
>to work a camera. She's going to do it again. In fact she's already doing it

George,
    That you believe half of the crap that you write in here speaks volumes
about how pathetic you actually are.

"Captured the hearts of the country" and "natural ability to work a camera",
indeed. In your dreams, George. In your dreams. But, thanks for the levity
to start the weekend off.

RE         <<< Note 37.564 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>"Captured the hearts of the country" and "natural ability to work a camera",
>indeed. In your dreams, George. In your dreams. But, thanks for the levity
>to start the weekend off.

  Well as I keep saying, and as you keep ignoring, Susan Smith's X husband
is worried about the same thing and that's why he's writing the book.

  George

I'm sure many people heard as you did what Mr. Smith had to say, George.
The difference is that most people haven't put much stock in it, whereas
you buy it.

  So you are saying most people think Mr. Smith is nuts to worry about public
opinion? 

  Funny, the media seemed to feel he had legitimate cause to worry.

  George

>>  Well as I keep saying, and as you keep ignoring, Susan Smith's X husband
>>is worried about the same thing and that's why he's writing the book.

	Her husband's worried.  Fine.  Big deal.  That makes her "an
	extremely sympathetic defendant" (ipso facto)?  No.  A woman
	who drowns her two children in a lake is anything but "sympathetic",
	no matter how small and "meek" looking.  I think you're just
	projecting, frankly George.
  

  Right now she gets minimum camera time and the conservative talking heads are
really burning the airwaves talking about her outrageous actions. 

  The trial is going to be entirely different. People will have had 6 months
during which they will have pretty much forgotten who she is and what she did.
Then the trial will start and it will be dominated by what people see, a small
woman up against an angry state calling for her violent death. 

  Remember, whether or not someone's a sympathetic defendant depends a lot
more on how they look than what they did and she's looks less like a killer
than anyone I've seen.

  Nine months from now she'll be a media darling and conservatives everywhere
will be popping veins left and right.

  This is going to be great fun,
  George

>>  Nine months from now she'll be a media darling and conservatives everywhere
>>will be popping veins left and right.
>>  This is going to be great fun

	This would be an enjoyable outcome for you, George?
	How...well, how nice.  How nice for Susan Smith's family, for her
	husband's family, and for everyone who loved her two children.