Parents and sister of Boston murder victims: "Drop the death penalty"

[emilynghiem]

Drop the death penalty say parents of Boston bombing victim - Yahoo News

...
Bill and Denise Richard, parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, instead urged the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a deal in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted last week of the 2013 attack, would waive his appeal rights in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives," the couple wrote in a statement titled "To end the anguish, drop the death penalty."
...
In addition to Richard, the bombing killed Krystle Campbell, 29, and Lingzi Lu, 23. The Tsaranevs shot dead a police officer, Sean Collier, 26, three days later.

Collier's sister this week also asked prosecutors to stop pursuing a death sentence.
==========
My notes:
In a letter addressed to Clarke (defense attorney), that I forwarded to two abolition groups in Texas,
I supported an alternative sentence, such as Tsarnaev working in prison the rest of his life supporting his costs, as well as the medical care and costs of the Ft. Hood Shooter. Since he is only 23, the amount of work he could do in his lifetime could replace years of sweatshop work, so children could be freed to go to school.
Why not start a prison exchange program on the border, revoke the citizenship of criminals, and exchange places for applicants on the waiting list willing to work productive honest jobs to pay their way in society.

Thursday letters Death penalty immigration marijuana - Houston Chronicle

 

[Pogo]

Solid point. There is nothing in the world to be gained from acts of vengeance. This eye for an eye shit should be relegated to the primitive past whence it came.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think he should be made to walk around every day until a random bomb maims and/ or kills him

 

[Valerie]

 

[CynthiaZ]

I think we need to reform the appeals process for cases like these. It shouldn't take decades to carry out the sentence and the witnesses and victims of the crimes should be dragged into court over and over again.

 

[Impenitent]

Drop the death penalty say parents of Boston bombing victim - Yahoo News

...
Bill and Denise Richard, parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, instead urged the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a deal in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted last week of the 2013 attack, would waive his appeal rights in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives," the couple wrote in a statement titled "To end the anguish, drop the death penalty."
...
In addition to Richard, the bombing killed Krystle Campbell, 29, and Lingzi Lu, 23. The Tsaranevs shot dead a police officer, Sean Collier, 26, three days later.

Collier's sister this week also asked prosecutors to stop pursuing a death sentence.
==========
My notes:
In a letter addressed to Clarke (defense attorney), that I forwarded to two abolition groups in Texas,
I supported an alternative sentence, such as Tsarnaev working in prison the rest of his life supporting his costs, as well as the medical care and costs of the Ft. Hood Shooter. Since he is only 23, the amount of work he could do in his lifetime could replace years of sweatshop work, so children could be freed to go to school.
Why not start a prison exchange program on the border, revoke the citizenship of criminals, and exchange places for applicants on the waiting list willing to work productive honest jobs to pay their way in society.

Thursday letters Death penalty immigration marijuana - Houston Chronicle

Revocation of citizenship is possible for those who became naturalized citizens, but is not constitutional for natural born citizens.

How can you advocate this while still calling yourself a constitutionalist?

 

[ScienceRocks]

why? Fry the little prick.

 

[emilynghiem]

Drop the death penalty say parents of Boston bombing victim - Yahoo News

...
Bill and Denise Richard, parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, instead urged the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a deal in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted last week of the 2013 attack, would waive his appeal rights in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives," the couple wrote in a statement titled "To end the anguish, drop the death penalty."
...
In addition to Richard, the bombing killed Krystle Campbell, 29, and Lingzi Lu, 23. The Tsaranevs shot dead a police officer, Sean Collier, 26, three days later.

Collier's sister this week also asked prosecutors to stop pursuing a death sentence.
==========
My notes:
In a letter addressed to Clarke (defense attorney), that I forwarded to two abolition groups in Texas,
I supported an alternative sentence, such as Tsarnaev working in prison the rest of his life supporting his costs, as well as the medical care and costs of the Ft. Hood Shooter. Since he is only 23, the amount of work he could do in his lifetime could replace years of sweatshop work, so children could be freed to go to school.
Why not start a prison exchange program on the border, revoke the citizenship of criminals, and exchange places for applicants on the waiting list willing to work productive honest jobs to pay their way in society.

Thursday letters Death penalty immigration marijuana - Houston Chronicle

Revocation of citizenship is possible for those who became naturalized citizens, but is not constitutional for natural born citizens.

How can you advocate this while still calling yourself a constitutionalist?

Hi Impenitent
Anyone has the freedom to renounce their citizenship, natural born or not.
I am talking about a voluntary process where people AGREE on alternative restitution.

I don't think it is unconstitutional to respect different beliefs for different people.
I respect your beliefs, too. I believe in taking all these ideas and forming a CONSENSUS,
even case by case if necessary to resolve all conflicts as possible.

If people who DON'T believe in the death penalty
agree to something else, that doesn't HAVE to mean imposing. it can be freely chosen.

If some people don't believe in funding the death penalty, and if you don't agree with revoking citizenship, that's fine, too! Why not take all views into account?

What if a convict in a capital case is given the choice of either the death penalty or
forfeiting citizenship VOLUNTARILY in order to work through a restitution settlement.

Why not offer that OPTION? it isn't imposing anything if people AGREE and freely choose that option.

Impenitent, if someone is already going to get the death penalty as the toughest sentence, then once they get that, there is nothing left to negotiate with to get them to cooperate with authorities to resolve cases in full, including restitution. What if citizens signed agreement in ADVANCE, that in order to get legal defense paid for by the state, they must comply and cooperate fully to resolve their cases instead of dragging them out at taxpayer expense.

Why not have DEGREES of punishment, and an AGREEMENT on conditions in order to qualify for getting legal defense paid for?

To give incentive to reduce crime and lower costs to taxpayer, why not give tax breaks to districts where residents agree to signed contracts: that citizens agree to pursue conflict resolution to reduce the costs of crime and lawsuits; and accept legal responsibility for damages and financial costs if convicted of a premeditated crime. Then we could hold people to account (instead of taxpayers footing the bill, not for just the crime itself, but also the legal finagling and costs of prosecution, incarceration and supporting another person at 50K a year taken out of the workforce.

What if people AGREED to rules of citizenship:
If you want to keep your citizenship, serve your time in the US, then you have to cooperate 100% with authorities, free up all information necessary to establish truth and justice in your case, and then you qualify to get legal defense paid for. But if you abuse privileges to create more damages and debts, then you are responsible for costs YOU create, not dumped on the taxpayers.

I'm not talking about imposing ANYTHING against ANYONE's beliefs.
This can be completely VOLUNTARY, by giving tax breaks to districts that effectively reduce their crime rates by having all residents go through citizenship training and sign agreements.

If you don't believe in revoking citizenship as an alternative to executions,
you are welcome to fund and support a different approach.

I just find it changes the game, to bring up the idea of writing up and signing agreements in advance NOT to commit crimes or abuses because these come with a price tag. Why not teach people the costs in advance, and sign agreements to pay the costs we incur? Wouldn't that reduce crime to hold wrongdoers responsible? Wouldn't that enforce civil standards more consistently and deter abuses. Not out of punishment after the fact, but for the RIGHT reasons of preventing wrongs to begin with by considering the social costs and holding people to account.

I believe that would be a better deterrent than the death penalty, because all the work to resolve conflicts, address and correct the root causes of crime would be addressed UP FRONT.
Not waiting until after crime is committed to intervene "after the fact."

 

[Impenitent]

Drop the death penalty say parents of Boston bombing victim - Yahoo News

...
Bill and Denise Richard, parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, instead urged the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a deal in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted last week of the 2013 attack, would waive his appeal rights in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives," the couple wrote in a statement titled "To end the anguish, drop the death penalty."
...
In addition to Richard, the bombing killed Krystle Campbell, 29, and Lingzi Lu, 23. The Tsaranevs shot dead a police officer, Sean Collier, 26, three days later.

Collier's sister this week also asked prosecutors to stop pursuing a death sentence.
==========
My notes:
In a letter addressed to Clarke (defense attorney), that I forwarded to two abolition groups in Texas,
I supported an alternative sentence, such as Tsarnaev working in prison the rest of his life supporting his costs, as well as the medical care and costs of the Ft. Hood Shooter. Since he is only 23, the amount of work he could do in his lifetime could replace years of sweatshop work, so children could be freed to go to school.
Why not start a prison exchange program on the border, revoke the citizenship of criminals, and exchange places for applicants on the waiting list willing to work productive honest jobs to pay their way in society.

Thursday letters Death penalty immigration marijuana - Houston Chronicle

Revocation of citizenship is possible for those who became naturalized citizens, but is not constitutional for natural born citizens.

How can you advocate this while still calling yourself a constitutionalist?

Hi Impenitent
Anyone has the freedom to renounce their citizenship, natural born or not.
I am talking about a voluntary process where people AGREE on alternative restitution.

I don't think it is unconstitutional to respect different beliefs for different people.
I respect your beliefs, too. I believe in taking all these ideas and forming a CONSENSUS,
even case by case if necessary to resolve all conflicts as possible.

If people who DON'T believe in the death penalty
agree to something else, that doesn't HAVE to mean imposing. it can be freely chosen.

If some people don't believe in funding the death penalty, and if you don't agree with revoking citizenship, that's fine, too! Why not take all views into account?

What if a convict in a capital case is given the choice of either the death penalty or
forfeiting citizenship VOLUNTARILY in order to work through a restitution settlement.

Why not offer that OPTION? it isn't imposing anything if people AGREE and freely choose that option.

Impenitent, if someone is already going to get the death penalty as the toughest sentence, then once they get that, there is nothing left to negotiate with to get them to cooperate with authorities to resolve cases in full, including restitution. What if citizens signed agreement in ADVANCE, that in order to get legal defense paid for by the state, they must comply and cooperate fully to resolve their cases instead of dragging them out at taxpayer expense.

Why not have DEGREES of punishment, and an AGREEMENT on conditions in order to qualify for getting legal defense paid for?

To give incentive to reduce crime and lower costs to taxpayer, why not give tax breaks to districts where residents agree to signed contracts: that citizens agree to pursue conflict resolution to reduce the costs of crime and lawsuits; and accept legal responsibility for damages and financial costs if convicted of a premeditated crime. Then we could hold people to account (instead of taxpayers footing the bill, not for just the crime itself, but also the legal finagling and costs of prosecution, incarceration and supporting another person at 50K a year taken out of the workforce.

What if people AGREED to rules of citizenship:
If you want to keep your citizenship, serve your time in the US, then you have to cooperate 100% with authorities, free up all information necessary to establish truth and justice in your case, and then you qualify to get legal defense paid for. But if you abuse privileges to create more damages and debts, then you are responsible for costs YOU create, not dumped on the taxpayers.

I'm not talking about imposing ANYTHING against ANYONE's beliefs.
This can be completely VOLUNTARY, by giving tax breaks to districts that effectively reduce their crime rates by having all residents go through citizenship training and sign agreements.

If you don't believe in revoking citizenship as an alternative to executions,
you are welcome to fund and support a different approach.

I just find it changes the game, to bring up the idea of writing up and signing agreements in advance NOT to commit crimes or abuses because these come with a price tag. Why not teach people the costs in advance, and sign agreements to pay the costs we incur? Wouldn't that reduce crime to hold wrongdoers responsible? Wouldn't that enforce civil standards more consistently and deter abuses. Not out of punishment after the fact, but for the RIGHT reasons of preventing wrongs to begin with by considering the social costs and holding people to account.

I believe that would be a better deterrent than the death penalty, because all the work to resolve conflicts, address and correct the root causes of crime would be addressed UP FRONT.
Not waiting until after crime is committed to intervene "after the fact."

Your views are inconsistent. It hard to tell what you believe from day to day.

This is your quote from one of your earlier threads:

"Even for the death penalty, it has been argued that the choice is necessary to compel parties to cooperate with authorities instead of denying wrongdoing. We could also give the state authority to revoke citizenship if offenders hold back information that denies justice or obstructs due process; so that in order to invoke rights under law the parties must agree to respect the same."

This isn't voluntary at all. It's coercive and violates the suspect's right against self-incrimination.

It violates both the 5th and 14th amendments.

But it could get its shot if both houses remain Republican and we get a Republican President.

 

[emilynghiem]

Drop the death penalty say parents of Boston bombing victim - Yahoo News

...
Bill and Denise Richard, parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, instead urged the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a deal in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted last week of the 2013 attack, would waive his appeal rights in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives," the couple wrote in a statement titled "To end the anguish, drop the death penalty."
...
In addition to Richard, the bombing killed Krystle Campbell, 29, and Lingzi Lu, 23. The Tsaranevs shot dead a police officer, Sean Collier, 26, three days later.

Collier's sister this week also asked prosecutors to stop pursuing a death sentence.
==========
My notes:
In a letter addressed to Clarke (defense attorney), that I forwarded to two abolition groups in Texas,
I supported an alternative sentence, such as Tsarnaev working in prison the rest of his life supporting his costs, as well as the medical care and costs of the Ft. Hood Shooter. Since he is only 23, the amount of work he could do in his lifetime could replace years of sweatshop work, so children could be freed to go to school.
Why not start a prison exchange program on the border, revoke the citizenship of criminals, and exchange places for applicants on the waiting list willing to work productive honest jobs to pay their way in society.

Thursday letters Death penalty immigration marijuana - Houston Chronicle

Revocation of citizenship is possible for those who became naturalized citizens, but is not constitutional for natural born citizens.

How can you advocate this while still calling yourself a constitutionalist?

Hi Impenitent
Anyone has the freedom to renounce their citizenship, natural born or not.
I am talking about a voluntary process where people AGREE on alternative restitution.

I don't think it is unconstitutional to respect different beliefs for different people.
I respect your beliefs, too. I believe in taking all these ideas and forming a CONSENSUS,
even case by case if necessary to resolve all conflicts as possible.

If people who DON'T believe in the death penalty
agree to something else, that doesn't HAVE to mean imposing. it can be freely chosen.

If some people don't believe in funding the death penalty, and if you don't agree with revoking citizenship, that's fine, too! Why not take all views into account?

What if a convict in a capital case is given the choice of either the death penalty or
forfeiting citizenship VOLUNTARILY in order to work through a restitution settlement.

Why not offer that OPTION? it isn't imposing anything if people AGREE and freely choose that option.

Impenitent, if someone is already going to get the death penalty as the toughest sentence, then once they get that, there is nothing left to negotiate with to get them to cooperate with authorities to resolve cases in full, including restitution. What if citizens signed agreement in ADVANCE, that in order to get legal defense paid for by the state, they must comply and cooperate fully to resolve their cases instead of dragging them out at taxpayer expense.

Why not have DEGREES of punishment, and an AGREEMENT on conditions in order to qualify for getting legal defense paid for?

To give incentive to reduce crime and lower costs to taxpayer, why not give tax breaks to districts where residents agree to signed contracts: that citizens agree to pursue conflict resolution to reduce the costs of crime and lawsuits; and accept legal responsibility for damages and financial costs if convicted of a premeditated crime. Then we could hold people to account (instead of taxpayers footing the bill, not for just the crime itself, but also the legal finagling and costs of prosecution, incarceration and supporting another person at 50K a year taken out of the workforce.

What if people AGREED to rules of citizenship:
If you want to keep your citizenship, serve your time in the US, then you have to cooperate 100% with authorities, free up all information necessary to establish truth and justice in your case, and then you qualify to get legal defense paid for. But if you abuse privileges to create more damages and debts, then you are responsible for costs YOU create, not dumped on the taxpayers.

I'm not talking about imposing ANYTHING against ANYONE's beliefs.
This can be completely VOLUNTARY, by giving tax breaks to districts that effectively reduce their crime rates by having all residents go through citizenship training and sign agreements.

If you don't believe in revoking citizenship as an alternative to executions,
you are welcome to fund and support a different approach.

I just find it changes the game, to bring up the idea of writing up and signing agreements in advance NOT to commit crimes or abuses because these come with a price tag. Why not teach people the costs in advance, and sign agreements to pay the costs we incur? Wouldn't that reduce crime to hold wrongdoers responsible? Wouldn't that enforce civil standards more consistently and deter abuses. Not out of punishment after the fact, but for the RIGHT reasons of preventing wrongs to begin with by considering the social costs and holding people to account.

I believe that would be a better deterrent than the death penalty, because all the work to resolve conflicts, address and correct the root causes of crime would be addressed UP FRONT.
Not waiting until after crime is committed to intervene "after the fact."

Your views are inconsistent. It hard to tell what you believe from day to day.

This is your quote from one of your earlier threads:

"Even for the death penalty, it has been argued that the choice is necessary to compel parties to cooperate with authorities instead of denying wrongdoing. We could also give the state authority to revoke citizenship if offenders hold back information that denies justice or obstructs due process; so that in order to invoke rights under law the parties must agree to respect the same."

This isn't voluntary at all. It's coercive and violates the suspect's right against self-incrimination.

It violates both the 5th and 14th amendments.

But it could get its shot if both houses remain Republican and we get a Republican President.

Hi Impenitent You are missing the point of setting up this agreement in advance. You don't wait until after people commit capital crimes to start teaching them the laws.

We need to do the work in advance.
So working through the process of teaching democratic rights, consent, representation and due process to ALL citizens; establishing how much work and money it really costs to enforce these civilized and equal standards of law; and then agreeing what policies to enforce as EQUALS.

So by working out in advance what standards, process and principles we AGREE to uphold,
there is NO COERCION. Because everyone agreed to how to resolve issues when they arise.

Impenitent I think you are ignoring the fact that after someone commits a violation, and creates a debt, then of course people who are wronged have a right to redress those grievances, and seek restitution to assess the damages and restore what they need to operate.

Why wait until AFTER someone is raped, robbed, injured or murdered to teach people the consequences of their actions?

If we teach this in advance, where citizens are FULLY INFORMED and LEGALLY COMPETENT then there is no need for coercion! People will respect the laws when they understand THEIR RIGHTS are enforced by upholding the laws. It protects the integrity of civil standards for everyone.

This is enforced by TEACHING and training people in democratic processes.
Just like all the Constitutionalists who do their own outreach, because once you understand the authority of laws belongs with the people, of course we all want that invoked consistently and NOT ABUSED.

That level of justice is achieved by educated choice and free will. People naturally check and balance each other once we understand that our security and stability depends on establishing good working relations on agreed terms.

If there is any "peer pressure" it is for the right reasons, to make sure we are all on point, on the same page, and aren't abusing parts of the law out of context, but are consistent.

So thanks for demonstrating that, Imp.
You and I are not "coercing" each other, we are not trying to pass laws and force the other to comply with foreign beliefs; we hold each other to account directly by resolving issues.

That's the democratic process at work. We teach everyone that, and we can share responsibility for government on a local level with direct transparency and accountability. Then build up more stable systems of govt based on those kind of relationships.

All by free choice, conflict resolution and consensus point by point. No coercion or political bullying necessary.

 

[Impenitent]

You didn't have a working agreement with the Ferguson protestors, yet you are most will to tack on to their punishment;5)3 loss of citizenship and banishment to a Mexican prison,

" I would even look into legislation that would revoke citizenship
if people refuse to pay costs for premeditated crimes they are convicted of.
Stop charging the cost to the victims and to the taxpayers to pay for crimes of others!

More people might fear losing citizenship and ending up in a Mexican prison
as a traded prisoner or deportee, than they fear any punishment in America with kangaroo courts and revolving door prisons, always paid for by the people supporting the govt they protest and want to punish anyway."

 

[emilynghiem]

You didn't have a working agreement with the Ferguson protestors, yet you are most will to tack on to their punishment;5)3 loss of citizenship and banishment to a Mexican prison,

" I would even look into legislation that would revoke citizenship
if people refuse to pay costs for premeditated crimes they are convicted of.
Stop charging the cost to the victims and to the taxpayers to pay for crimes of others!

More people might fear losing citizenship and ending up in a Mexican prison
as a traded prisoner or deportee, than they fear any punishment in America with kangaroo courts and revolving door prisons, always paid for by the people supporting the govt they protest and want to punish anyway."

Yes and all that I say I expect to work out by CONSENSUS.

Of course with each person, group, situation,
the terms change by the time you work out a solution.

What is wrong with presenting what I would enforce?

Impenitent, if people DAMAGED property, by natural laws they owe restitution to repair the wrongs in PROPORTION to what they deliberately did. That is natural law, of cause and effect, karma or justice.

I am just presenting the grievances and asking it to be worked out.

Whatever form or solution that turns out to be DEPENDS ON THE PEOPLE.

Do you know how mediation works?

The people with a vested interest in the outcome state what they want, work out their emotional need for validation, and the solutions are FACILITATED by including everyone who is affected by the decisions.

Impenitent maybe you missed the first 5 millions posts I've made all over this board.
Dante and JakeStarkey can tell you I believe in consensus, of taking everyone's input and making sure the solutions represent the will of all people affected. Even to the point of sounding like I don't believe in going through the legal channels; when my point is to form an agreement among the people first, and then take those points through the legal and legislative processes.

As for Ferguson, I'd have to address the actual people involved in these incidents to work out a plan for restitution.

but yes, I do think it would be VERY interesting to propose that if people don't want to take responsibility for the property and financial damage they inflicted, to offer to create a track for immigrant workers to do that work as part of earning citizenship.

Impenitent I think the part you are missing is that by PROPOSING this concept, then people have to work out all the details in advance.

And by the time you do that, and reach an agreement on how to ensure accountability, guess what, you've already solved the problem of why there wasn't respect for the law to begin with.

Nobody bothered to spell out the laws, and costs of such crimes in advance.

Had this been worked out, the looting and violent vandalism and attacks could have been prevented.

So that's the real point -- working toward prevention on the FRONT end by Agreeing in Advance to enforce laws instead of violating laws and expecting other people to clean up.

That whole mindset has to change; so by proposing to work out agreements on the requirements of citizenship, that would get the conversation started! And hopefully lead to mass public education on civil laws and due process, in order to reduce the incidence of crime, violence, abuse and other violations.

the whole point is to establish mutual respect for enforcing laws among all citizens equally.

I'm just using Ferguson as one example. For any of the real process to work, the point is to work out agreements in advance on what procedures to follow, teach and train in. And all this nonsense can be prevented after the fact; addressing that isn't really the end in itself.

We have to start at the beginning and set the whole system up to be consistent and have full support and cooperation of everyone freely, not by division or coercion of one group with more power than another. The whole paradigm is changing.

 

[Unkotare]

Stupid idea, lame-brain. Let it go.

 

[Impenitent]

You didn't have a working agreement with the Ferguson protestors, yet you are most will to tack on to their punishment;5)3 loss of citizenship and banishment to a Mexican prison,

" I would even look into legislation that would revoke citizenship
if people refuse to pay costs for premeditated crimes they are convicted of.
Stop charging the cost to the victims and to the taxpayers to pay for crimes of others!

More people might fear losing citizenship and ending up in a Mexican prison
as a traded prisoner or deportee, than they fear any punishment in America with kangaroo courts and revolving door prisons, always paid for by the people supporting the govt they protest and want to punish anyway."

Yes and all that I say I expect to work out by CONSENSUS.

Of course with each person, group, situation,
the terms change by the time you work out a solution.

What is wrong with presenting what I would enforce?

Impenitent, if people DAMAGED property, by natural laws they owe restitution to repair the wrongs in PROPORTION to what they deliberately did. That is natural law, of cause and effect, karma or justice.

I am just presenting the grievances and asking it to be worked out.

Whatever form or solution that turns out to be DEPENDS ON THE PEOPLE.

Do you know how mediation works?

The people with a vested interest in the outcome state what they want, work out their emotional need for validation, and the solutions are FACILITATED by including everyone who is affected by the decisions.

Impenitent maybe you missed the first 5 millions posts I've made all over this board.
Dante and JakeStarkey can tell you I believe in consensus, of taking everyone's input and making sure the solutions represent the will of all people affected. Even to the point of sounding like I don't believe in going through the legal channels; when my point is to form an agreement among the people first, and then take those points through the legal and legislative processes.

As for Ferguson, I'd have to address the actual people involved in these incidents to work out a plan for restitution.

but yes, I do think it would be VERY interesting to propose that if people don't want to take responsibility for the property and financial damage they inflicted, to offer to create a track for immigrant workers to do that work as part of earning citizenship.

Impenitent I think the part you are missing is that by PROPOSING this concept, then people have to work out all the details in advance.

And by the time you do that, and reach an agreement on how to ensure accountability, guess what, you've already solved the problem of why there wasn't respect for the law to begin with.

Nobody bothered to spell out the laws, and costs of such crimes in advance.

Had this been worked out, the looting and violent vandalism and attacks could have been prevented.

So that's the real point -- working toward prevention on the FRONT end by Agreeing in Advance to enforce laws instead of violating laws and expecting other people to clean up.

That whole mindset has to change; so by proposing to work out agreements on the requirements of citizenship, that would get the conversation started! And hopefully lead to mass public education on civil laws and due process, in order to reduce the incidence of crime, violence, abuse and other violations.

the whole point is to establish mutual respect for enforcing laws among all citizens equally.

I'm just using Ferguson as one example. For any of the real process to work, the point is to work out agreements in advance on what procedures to follow, teach and train in. And all this nonsense can be prevented after the fact; addressing that isn't really the end in itself.

We have to start at the beginning and set the whole system up to be consistent and have full support and cooperation of everyone freely, not by division or coercion of one group with more power than another. The whole paradigm is changing.

My point being that how can you simultaneously call yourself a constitutionalist while being perfectly willing to barter away constitutional guaranties to one class of citizens?

 

[Roadrunner]

I think we need to reform the appeals process for cases like these. It shouldn't take decades to carry out the sentence and the witnesses and victims of the crimes should be dragged into court over and over again.

Really, this guy has been around too long already.

All that was needed was a jury, a judge, a few minutes of video, and an execution.

 

[Pogo]

why? Fry the little prick.

Because you don't have the right to do that, that's why. And neither does the State.

 

[Unkotare]

why? Fry the little prick.

Because you don't have the right to do that, that's why. And neither does the State.

Yes, the state does.

 

[Esmeralda]

I think we need to reform the appeals process for cases like these. It shouldn't take decades to carry out the sentence and the witnesses and victims of the crimes should be dragged into court over and over again.

Many people on death row have been proven innocent after years and years in prison. If we were to execute them more quickly, we would be killing innocent people.

 

[HenryBHough]

Mike Dukakis.

Think it was "Willie Horton" that kept him out of national office?

Think it was his Mad Magazine post in a military tank that kept him out?

Think again.

It was his answer to how he'd punish someone who had beaten and raped his wife, Kitty.

Remember what he said?

Look that up then let the landslide lost he suffered in the election tell you all you need to know about America's feelings on penalties.

A little sop for those of you who don't know how to do a websearch:

Dukakis Deadly Response - Top 10 Memorable Debate Moments - TIME

 

[Pogo]

^^ Non sequitur.