Chill, Pabst. As a moderator, you occupy a position of responsibility. It's difficult for me to believe that a reasonably responsible individual would interpret Convertability's statement: "What a way for taxpayer money to be spent", to mean that he's suggesting what you've outlined above. As you so clearly disagree with his sentiment, you could have pesented YOUR point of view in a manner with fewer tones of sarcasm. You certainly would have gained more respect for yourself as a person and for your position as moderator.
How about this for an alternative ... A convicted felon loses ALL of his assets thru forfeiture. Instead of liquidation at auction for pennies on the dollar, dispose of these assets thru consignment in the market place. Use the revenues so realized to keep and house the felons. If there's enough $$$ to house them in a max with one inmate per cell ... so be it. If, however, sales are a little slow, then it looks like maybe it's neck and leg irons for a while. Now before anyone brings up 'cruel and unusual punishment' ... if the criminal knows full well in advance what he may face if incarcerated, and still commits the crime, then he has accepted responsibility for affirming the punishment.
If it was done all the time it would not be all that unusual so you could get past the cruel and unusual punishment thing Anyhow, isolation is the worst punishment you can imagine. The demons just get worse and worse with those guys until reality loses it's meaning. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He will welcome a good beating after a while but in SuperMax he won't ever get it.
Michael Isikoff nailed it. From Crooks and Liars video Isikoff: This entire Moussaoui trial was a side show. The Justice Department indicted him at the time, they thought he might have been the 20th hijacker. They later learned he was not. But there was a feeling, that for altogether understandable reasons, that the country needed a trial, the cathartic effect of a trial to deal with the most horrific crime in American history. What this trial ought to do at this point provoke a debate and discussion and concentration on why we haven`t tried the people who were responsible for 9/11. But there was a feeling, that for altogether understandable reasons, that the country needed a trial, the cathartic effect of a trial to deal with the most horrific crime in American history. But the point is that after the time that they indicted Moussaoui, we came to get into custody the people who were directly responsible for that crime, the architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (pictured here at top), Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was Mohammed Atta`s collaborator at every step of the way -- twice in 2001, Atta leaves the country to consult with Ramzi bin al-Shibh about the for the attack -- the financier who was also in custody, Qualli bin Atassh (phonetic) who helped planned it at the Malaysia meeting. But the government has been completely stymied about what do to with these people. Why -- and this is the one where it is really worth connecting the dots. It goes straight into the White House, the Oval Office and the vice president`s office because key decisions were made about aggressive interrogation techniques that were going to be used on these people. ----------- Osama bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh still walk the earth but at least America got someone to take the blame for 9/11, even if he had little to no know knowledge or involvement in the whole thing.
What is the point of using taxpaying dollars to keep alive people who obviously engage in behavior detrimental to society? Put these people to work or give them a free pass to the afterworld if they so desire. Sitting in cells with a tv, 3 meals a day and medical treatment are costs that outweigh any logical benefit. But this is a topic for a whole other thread. O yeah, in the real world, as of 5/4/06, Osama is still alive.
Honestly, I misinterpreted your view. You don't seem to be a hardliner who advocates capital punishment. I do agree with your sentiment on this one. However to give death to someone who didn't kill or directly conspire is harsh and yet this ain't the kind of guy who should be in work release. It was a hard call.
I have always wondered what was up with the whole 72 virgins thing? I mean if you sacrificed yourself for the almighty wouldn't you just rather have 6 or 7 pros? Red
Question to Convertibility: shouldn't he have been found innocent since 9/11 was a governemnt sponsored event?
me guessin da same axkin to bit? shouldn't he have walked since 9/11 was done to AMERICANS by AMERICANS? fucking wackos