Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: richard surckla who wrote (55979)	9/30/2000 9:52:07 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

OT Richard, as far as I am concerned, if you can show me a single case where an innocent person has been executed by any state, it is a violation of the constitution and the death penalty should be modified. I personally would take the biblical dictum that states, the death penalty for murder should be imposed only if there were two eye witnesses (some go even further, and say that "litmus test should be that these witnesses warned the murderer that his "coming action" is a death bearing and grave sin). Applying the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence is not only "state arrogance" (our prosecutor knows best), it brings on all the tax payers (paying for those killings) the moral responsibility for killing an innocent person. Of course, it also applies the law differently to different classes of people. The rich like OJ, von Bilow (sp, and I do not mean our Carl, but the Conn. guy that murdered his sick "heiress" wife, etc...) can afford "high powered" lawyers and get off the hot seat, but the poor (and too often, the black) get the electric chair. I think that the Republican Gov. of IL is right in suspending the death penalty, they found that more than one innocent person was killed, and a much larger number was going to undergo state assassination for the wrong reasons. By the way, this point of view, IMHO, is a true "Libertarian" point of view, it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or "compasionate conservatism" (careful, that type of compassion kills, it is a "moral recession"), it has to do with individual rights, including the rights of those "framed" by law enforcement elements. We already know that in LA, such practices were widespread, I wonder how many other police departments practice justice in the same manner. Zeev

To: richard surckla who wrote (55979)	9/30/2000 5:29:05 PM
From: Paul A	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

another OT.. sorry.. Just could let this one slip by.. "According to you we should set up clinics so that people. including the kids, can go to the clinics to get their drugs free or at a very low cost. This does not solve the problem of individual abuse, it only increases it." now- my comment to that is, how do you know the idea of treatment would result in more users??? its never been done! America deals with its drug problem with harsh minimum mandatory sentences, in most instances- drug offenders are treated more harshly than rapists and child molestors. This is a fact..Im not talking drug dealers either,.. but as human beings, in a natural instinct to protect our loved ones from killing themselves we justify taking draconian measures to stem the problem. and has it worked? Ask the 14 year olds I passed hiking in the woods last weekend.. Sorry to waste thread space, but whenever I see people typing opinions regarding our nations judicial system, and in particular our drug eradication efforts, it hits home real hard.. When I was 22, I was arrested for smoking a joint. Fine.. But in NJ, we have what is called a drug free school zone. 3 years in jail minimum mandatory. Judge didnt want to hear a single excuse.. It didnt matter that it was at 12:30 am in a restaraunt my friend owned.. all they cared was there was a school across the street and I was charged as dealing narcotics in a school zone.. 1 joint.. Essentially I could have robbed a bank at gun point and probably gotten a better deal as a first time offender.. I wont even get into the story of my friend whos child identified a 'high times' magazine which promplty lead to a raid, bust, 1/4 ounce of marijuana found and the children were place in foster homes until the matter was resolved.. its easy to say kill all criminals.. problem is, what you consider a criminal and what someone like myself consider a criminal could be 2 different things.. In an ironic twist, at the same time my life was being destroyed- our loving couple in the white house was shouting 'just say no!' as the DEA planes were quietly bringing the powder right into our childrens eager noses.. Sickening.. Nothing has an easy answer.. but when you talk about putting someone to death you need to make damn certain this person deserves this fate.. I just dont think with my experience in this joke of a legal system the rich have shaped for this country that I can honestly trust giving too rope to our elected officials.. Maybe one day we can kill people who dont chew with their mouths closed?? :)