DS
Well, it's either the government or the individual. You know what can of worms opens up if the individual is allowed to take the law into his own hand, thus a body of government (legislative/executive) should be responsible for this type of thing.
The revamping or disestablishment of capital punishment might inadvertently incite vigilantism, but it certainly wouldn't condone it.
DS
The only path that should be taken is more extensive policing skills and less time on death row. Remember, if tomorrow you found out that if you committed a murder, you'd be dead within a year, I guarantee you that crimes involving murders will drop dramatically.
Most likely. Research indicates that capital punishment is misapplied in terms of time spent on death row and its standard use. What would get you the needle in one state would get you something entirely different in another.
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
The revamping or disestablishment of capital punishment might inadvertently incite vigilantism, but it certainly wouldn't condone it.
Most likely. Research indicates that capital punishment is misapplied in terms of time spent on death row and its standard use. What would get you the needle in one state would get you something entirely different in another. [/B]Absolutely, so capital punishment isn't the issue, the administering of it is.
DS
It won't inadvertently incite vigilantism, it would be directly responsible for it.
Inadvertent in that any ensuing vigilantism would be unintentional on the government's part.
DS
It won't condone it, but nor will it condemn it.
Eh?
I disagree entirely. Capital punishment is misapplied heavily as is and vigilante justice is still illegal. The government's not going to give it a free hand.
DS
Absolutely, so capital punishment isn't the issue, the administering of it is.
Which is what I've been saying. I'm not against it, I'm against how it is used.
Eh?It may be misapplied but there's some closure for the public knowing that it eventually gets done. If that gets taken away, you will have vigilantism. The government will not give a free hand but as long as jury trials still exist, the vigilantes are more than likely going to be acquitted.
I disagree entirely. Capital punishment is misapplied heavily as is and vigilante justice is still illegal. The government's not going to give it a free hand.
Which is what I've been saying. I'm not against it, I'm against how it is used. [/B]Agreed.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonThey retired or got rich enough. Also Gene Hackman doesnt seem to be doing anything though Denzel has two pictured preproduction at the moment.
They just dont make movies like Crimson Tide anymore. What happened to the days when you had so many great actors in one movie?
That's true.
I am a fan of equality though, personally. Even if it came out that the soldier's proficiency was dropping due to some morale problem, as a result of gay soldiers being openly gay, I'd say just make the heterosexual ones suck it up and learn to live with it, rather than reinstate something like DADT.
So all in all, relevance or not, I'd say it's good news. At least a step in the right direction.
!
Again, no difference in the long run. As long as they're competent soldiers, that's all that matters.
As an issue of social equality and the fair treatment of every individual who serves it makes a huge difference, and it's rather sad that it's taken this long to make it happen.
Originally posted by Eminence
No difference to the functioning or efficacy of the military, sure, although you'll note that a rather sizable host of DADT supporters have vocally disagreed.As an issue of social equality and the fair treatment of every individual who serves? It makes a huge difference, although it's rather sad that it's taken this long to make it happen.
What is the more important component of the military? Social equality and fair treatment or its efficacy?
Originally posted by Eminence
DADT repeal!Rejoice. Now.