{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 9:15:38 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 10:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 8:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 7:53 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make
it legal to
burglarize bike shops.

If everyone affected by the burglary gives informed
consent, why not?

Then it's not a burglary. It's a donation.



or 'reparations' as is currently claimed.
Just ignore the flames in these 'peaceful protest' images:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=october+20... es&ia=images
Here's the problem, at least some of the time:

What do you call a protest if 500 people are walking around quietly with
signs, some with toddlers on their shoulders, doing absolutely nothing
illegal?

Then what do you call the same protest if five punks suddenly drive up
with a Molotov cocktail and throw it at some concrete?

What do you call it if those punks then drive off and collect $100 from
a Proud Boys chapter?

I'm absolutely against rioting. I think it's absolutely
counterproductive. But I think not all is what it seems.
Why would you say that? We have proof that most of the violent protests are planned well ahead of time down to exact timing and how to accelerate violence by normally peaceful protestors by Antifa which because of this has been named a Domestic Terrorist Organization. You simply cannot control you bigotry.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=uxbndlbing

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 9:15:38 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 10:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 8:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 7:53 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make
it legal to
burglarize bike shops.

If everyone affected by the burglary gives informed
consent, why not?

Then it's not a burglary. It's a donation.



or 'reparations' as is currently claimed.
Just ignore the flames in these 'peaceful protest' images:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=october+20... es&ia=images
Here's the problem, at least some of the time:

What do you call a protest if 500 people are walking around quietly with
signs, some with toddlers on their shoulders, doing absolutely nothing
illegal?

Then what do you call the same protest if five punks suddenly drive up
with a Molotov cocktail and throw it at some concrete?

What do you call it if those punks then drive off and collect $100 from
a Proud Boys chapter?

I'm absolutely against rioting. I think it's absolutely
counterproductive. But I think not all is what it seems.
Why would you say that? We have proof that most of the violent protests are planned well ahead of time down to exact timing and how to accelerate violence by normally peaceful protestors by Antifa which because of this has been named a Domestic Terrorist Organization. You simply cannot control you bigotry.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cid=uxbndlbing
What I find very interesting about the bigotry of Frank is that he doesn't even know that "the proud boys" includes blacks and Asians. The only thing you need to join is to be an American that wouldn't kneel for the National Anthem or the raising of the American flag. Hey Franky - show your bigotry some more. Certainly there must be someone with an IQ of 60 that hasn't noticed it.

rOn Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:15:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 10:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 8:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 7:53 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make
it legal to
burglarize bike shops.

If everyone affected by the burglary gives informed
consent, why not?

Then it's not a burglary. It's a donation.



or 'reparations' as is currently claimed.
Just ignore the flames in these 'peaceful protest' images:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=october+20... es&ia=images

Here's the problem, at least some of the time:

What do you call a protest if 500 people are walking around quietly with
signs, some with toddlers on their shoulders, doing absolutely nothing
illegal?

Then what do you call the same protest if five punks suddenly drive up
with a Molotov cocktail and throw it at some concrete?

What do you call it if those punks then drive off and collect $100 from
a Proud Boys chapter?

I'm absolutely against rioting. I think it's absolutely
counterproductive. But I think not all is what it seems.

Note that the first "protest" in the new United States was the so
called "Whiskey Rebellion" which was a protest against the first tax
levied on a domestic product... and was put down by military force.

One of the events was described as:

On August 1 (1790), about 7,000 people gathered at Braddock's Field.
The crowd consisted primarily of poor people who owned no land, and
most did not own whiskey stills. The furor over the whiskey excise had
unleashed anger about other economic grievances. By this time, the
victims of violence were often wealthy property owners who had no
connection to the whiskey tax. Some of the most radical protesters
wanted to march on Pittsburgh, which they called "Sodom", loot the
homes of the wealthy, and then burn the town to the ground.

Sound familiar?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:36:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 10:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Uh, the Government woke up one morning and took all
the weapons form
Australia's citizens with a vanishingly small number
of casualties.
They actually obeyed.

Naah, there are more registered firearms in Australia
than ever.
If you pass the handling tests and have a valid reason
for aÂ* gun, you
can get a licence.

Protecting your drug stash isn't a valid reason.
Penile substitution isn't a reason.
Bragging my gun is bigger then your gun isn't a reason.


Out of curiosity what are valid reasons? I suppose
"Defending my sheep
against dingoes" might be but, what about "I enjoy
target shooting"?

Both those.

Rural property owners have it easiest. Pest control,
killing injured/
diseased stock, etc all valid reason. Also, they can
authorise you to
shoot on their land and thus yo can get a gun owners
license.

If you are a member of a target shooting club, require
range/facilities,
the club can authorise you to obtain a license.

Your can also join the Sporting Shooters and similar
other clubs, abide
by their rules and get a licence to go game shooting in
certain areas.

You can not get a pistol license unless you are a target
shooter(can keep
it at home) or a licensed security guard(only carry when
working).

Lol, a senior Australian Federal Police officer is for
the chop. Instead
of leaving his glock in the safe at the end of the day,
he took it on
holiday to shoot targets, etc and then allowed another
person to use it.

Our system just prevents someone like Tommy that goes
gaga suddenly
acquiring a gun and popping any one they want to. There
are the usual
criminal holes and slack checking problems, but generally
it works.




Works about as well as the 100+ year old Heroin ban:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-BB19ktm0



https://thoughtleader.co.za/admin-2/...een-shot-down/



And in parallel logic:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make it
legal to burglarize bike shops.

(Really?)




Very effective:

https://abc7chicago.com/bike-shop-bu...swood/5111172/


https://cwbchicago.com/2019/01/linco...rglarized.html

https://wgntv.com/news/lincoln-park-...n-three-weeks/

Right. As I say, bike shops do get burglarized despite the laws. And
people do sell and use heroin despite the laws.

You seem to imply that anti-heroin laws do no good. One might similarly
say that anti-burglary laws do no good.

Which laws should be repealed and why?

It isn't the law, per se, but the enforcing of the law that matters.
In Singapore, for example, the penalty for dealing dope is hanging and
they do hang those convicted of the crime. And the penalty is enacted
within weeks of the conviction. Not 20 years later.

And, Singapore has the lowest number of drug users in the world.

I do think that quick enforcement is far better than delayed
enforcement. I don't know how we'd ever get to quick enforcement in the
U.S., though. We've got a long tradition and a long list of precedents
that allow horribly long delays when dealing with even horrible crimes.

Singapore has an advantage in being, quite literally, a "city state"
with it's much simpler legal system. In the event of a death sentence
the sentence is automatically forwarded to the President for action.
The president can ignore the question, in which the sentence is
carried out, return the case to the court for re-trial or pardon the
criminal.

But, no, I doubt that such an act would be acceptable in the U.S. as
there are such a multitude of "bleeding hearts" who, I suggest, view
things in a somewhat abstract manner.

One can only speculate on those who gather outside a Texas prison
holding candles when some character who has raped and murdered some 77
year old grandmother and stole her Social Security check is executed.

Would they would light candles if it were their grandmother... or
wife, laying there on the floor with her petticoat up around her
waist?

Some would still light candles. And I wouldn't mock them. There are
those with strong religious convictions against capital punishment.

Well, I would mock them as individuals that cut and fitted the
teachings in whichever "holy book" they believed in to fit their own
prejudices.


And there are cogent philosophical and psychological arguments against
it as well. Consider: Death sentences in the U.S. typically take
something like 15 years to be completed - that is, time from conviction
to the actual execution. If after 15 years they actually inject the
fatal drugs, or turn on the electricity or whatever, do you think it
actually acts as a deterrent to the next capital crime?

You are correct. I once had a small time dope dealer, or actually
attempted dope dealer work for me - somebody stole his stash before he
could actually sell any.

He told me that as soon as he got out of the Service he was going to
shoot the thief. His thinking was that if he committed murder while in
the Service he would be court-martialed and bingo straight into jail
or whatever but if he waited until he was a civilian he reckoned even
if convicted it would be 15 years before he would be executed.

I don't. Any stupid punk or heinously evil pervert who hears of the
execution will not be moved. They will have forgotten the original
crime, and/or they will think "I'm smarter, I'd get away with it."

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance for appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as hell,
uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the public for
constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails, YouTube
channels, etc.

Admittedly, I haven't thought deeply about all this, so I'm open to
discussion. But I'm not aware of information showing the current U.S.
practice of capital punishment actually does much good. I think there
are better ways.

Well, my belief is that all imprisonment should be "at hard labor",
the Prison Farms in several southern States, for example, while I
believe are not totally self sufficient but are far less costly, per
capita, to the state then in, say, California.

Note that the theory that prison "reforms" anyone from a life of crime
is largely false as:

"The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had an estimated
1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period, following release,

An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years,
79% within 6 years, and 83% within year after release and not arrested
again during the 9 years
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/29/2020 8:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:36:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 10:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Uh, the Government woke up one morning and took all
the weapons form
Australia's citizens with a vanishingly small number
of casualties.
They actually obeyed.

Naah, there are more registered firearms in Australia
than ever.
If you pass the handling tests and have a valid reason
for a gun, you
can get a licence.

Protecting your drug stash isn't a valid reason.
Penile substitution isn't a reason.
Bragging my gun is bigger then your gun isn't a reason.


Out of curiosity what are valid reasons? I suppose
"Defending my sheep
against dingoes" might be but, what about "I enjoy
target shooting"?

Both those.

Rural property owners have it easiest. Pest control,
killing injured/
diseased stock, etc all valid reason. Also, they can
authorise you to
shoot on their land and thus yo can get a gun owners
license.

If you are a member of a target shooting club, require
range/facilities,
the club can authorise you to obtain a license.

Your can also join the Sporting Shooters and similar
other clubs, abide
by their rules and get a licence to go game shooting in
certain areas.

You can not get a pistol license unless you are a target
shooter(can keep
it at home) or a licensed security guard(only carry when
working).

Lol, a senior Australian Federal Police officer is for
the chop. Instead
of leaving his glock in the safe at the end of the day,
he took it on
holiday to shoot targets, etc and then allowed another
person to use it.

Our system just prevents someone like Tommy that goes
gaga suddenly
acquiring a gun and popping any one they want to. There
are the usual
criminal holes and slack checking problems, but generally
it works.




Works about as well as the 100+ year old Heroin ban:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-BB19ktm0



https://thoughtleader.co.za/admin-2/...een-shot-down/



And in parallel logic:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make it
legal to burglarize bike shops.

(Really?)




Very effective:

https://abc7chicago.com/bike-shop-bu...swood/5111172/


https://cwbchicago.com/2019/01/linco...rglarized.html

https://wgntv.com/news/lincoln-park-...n-three-weeks/

Right. As I say, bike shops do get burglarized despite the laws. And
people do sell and use heroin despite the laws.

You seem to imply that anti-heroin laws do no good. One might similarly
say that anti-burglary laws do no good.

Which laws should be repealed and why?

It isn't the law, per se, but the enforcing of the law that matters.
In Singapore, for example, the penalty for dealing dope is hanging and
they do hang those convicted of the crime. And the penalty is enacted
within weeks of the conviction. Not 20 years later.

And, Singapore has the lowest number of drug users in the world.

I do think that quick enforcement is far better than delayed
enforcement. I don't know how we'd ever get to quick enforcement in the
U.S., though. We've got a long tradition and a long list of precedents
that allow horribly long delays when dealing with even horrible crimes.

Singapore has an advantage in being, quite literally, a "city state"
with it's much simpler legal system. In the event of a death sentence
the sentence is automatically forwarded to the President for action.
The president can ignore the question, in which the sentence is
carried out, return the case to the court for re-trial or pardon the
criminal.

But, no, I doubt that such an act would be acceptable in the U.S. as
there are such a multitude of "bleeding hearts" who, I suggest, view
things in a somewhat abstract manner.

One can only speculate on those who gather outside a Texas prison
holding candles when some character who has raped and murdered some 77
year old grandmother and stole her Social Security check is executed.

Would they would light candles if it were their grandmother... or
wife, laying there on the floor with her petticoat up around her
waist?

Some would still light candles. And I wouldn't mock them. There are
those with strong religious convictions against capital punishment.

Well, I would mock them as individuals that cut and fitted the
teachings in whichever "holy book" they believed in to fit their own
prejudices.


And there are cogent philosophical and psychological arguments against
it as well. Consider: Death sentences in the U.S. typically take
something like 15 years to be completed - that is, time from conviction
to the actual execution. If after 15 years they actually inject the
fatal drugs, or turn on the electricity or whatever, do you think it
actually acts as a deterrent to the next capital crime?

You are correct. I once had a small time dope dealer, or actually
attempted dope dealer work for me - somebody stole his stash before he
could actually sell any.

He told me that as soon as he got out of the Service he was going to
shoot the thief. His thinking was that if he committed murder while in
the Service he would be court-martialed and bingo straight into jail
or whatever but if he waited until he was a civilian he reckoned even
if convicted it would be 15 years before he would be executed.

I don't. Any stupid punk or heinously evil pervert who hears of the
execution will not be moved. They will have forgotten the original
crime, and/or they will think "I'm smarter, I'd get away with it."

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance for appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as hell,
uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the public for
constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails, YouTube
channels, etc.

Admittedly, I haven't thought deeply about all this, so I'm open to
discussion. But I'm not aware of information showing the current U.S.
practice of capital punishment actually does much good. I think there
are better ways.

Well, my belief is that all imprisonment should be "at hard labor",
the Prison Farms in several southern States, for example, while I
believe are not totally self sufficient but are far less costly, per
capita, to the state then in, say, California.

Note that the theory that prison "reforms" anyone from a life of crime
is largely false as:

"The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had an estimated
1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period, following release,

An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years,
79% within 6 years, and 83% within year after release and not arrested
again during the 9 years
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf



Every rule has an exception. my friend Tyrone for example:
https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781365307904

Then again, he's exceptional.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

with Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 10:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

*SKIP*
I don't. Any stupid punk or heinously evil pervert who hears of the
execution will not be moved. They will have forgotten the original
crime, and/or they will think "I'm smarter, I'd get away with it."

That's something I can't disagree with. However, how it connects with
what's below is beyond my understanding.

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance for appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.

It is this way (effectevely) already, isn't it?

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as
hell, uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the
public for constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails,
YouTube channels, etc.

That would be torture. How people jump from being The White Knight And
Stuff to torture is beyond my understanding.

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 3:33:14 AM UTC-7, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 10:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
*SKIP*
I don't. Any stupid punk or heinously evil pervert who hears of the
execution will not be moved. They will have forgotten the original
crime, and/or they will think "I'm smarter, I'd get away with it."
That's something I can't disagree with. However, how it connects with
what's below is beyond my understanding.
It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance for appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.
It is this way (effectevely) already, isn't it?
And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as
hell, uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the
public for constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails,
YouTube channels, etc.
That would be torture. How people jump from being The White Knight And
Stuff to torture is beyond my understanding.

*CUT*

We are pretty much in agreement. People that complain the most about things often are those most culpable for them. Among this group it is rather amazing that Frank will tell us about people sitting on death row for their entire lives rather than being executed when that might be the worst punishment for them. I am against the death penalty because I think that solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives is a far worse punishment for capital crimes. But of course it only is a deterrent if the media is willing to report on it and they will not.

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 6:33:14 AM UTC-4, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Frank Krygowski wrote:

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance t anfor appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.
It is this way (effectevely) already, isn't it?

I don't think so. We have a local case where a guy was convicted of raping and murdering a pre-teen boy.
His defense lawyers are still mounting appeals over 20 years later. And I think this matters because perps
think "If I get caught, I can get off on some technicality. And if I get convicted, I can try endless appeals and
I might get lucky and get out."

I don't know, but I suspect some of the death penalty defense attorneys are drawn to that job by moral
objections to execution. If the perp didn't face execution, but instead absolutely guaranteed sequestration,
there might be less chance of release. (Admittedly, this is just my idea. I'm not an expert at all.)

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as
hell, uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the
public for constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails,
YouTube channels, etc.
That would be torture. How people jump from being The White Knight And
Stuff to torture is beyond my understanding.

Being bored, uncomfortable and in ugly surroundings is torture?? Hell, for a lot of people that's just "work."

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/30/2020 12:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 6:33:14 AM UTC-4, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Frank Krygowski wrote:

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance t anfor appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.
It is this way (effectevely) already, isn't it?

I don't think so. We have a local case where a guy was convicted of raping and murdering a pre-teen boy.
His defense lawyers are still mounting appeals over 20 years later. And I think this matters because perps
think "If I get caught, I can get off on some technicality. And if I get convicted, I can try endless appeals and
I might get lucky and get out."

I don't know, but I suspect some of the death penalty defense attorneys are drawn to that job by moral
objections to execution. If the perp didn't face execution, but instead absolutely guaranteed sequestration,
there might be less chance of release. (Admittedly, this is just my idea. I'm not an expert at all.)

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as
hell, uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the
public for constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails,
YouTube channels, etc.
That would be torture. How people jump from being The White Knight And
Stuff to torture is beyond my understanding.

Being bored, uncomfortable and in ugly surroundings is torture?? Hell, for a lot of people that's just "work."

- Frank Krygowski



Then there's 'death by unintended consequences':

https://nypost.com/2020/02/05/man-wh...rs-found-dead/

'Reform' sounds great to people who have not thought deeply
about why we have what we have now.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 11:00:06 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/30/2020 12:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 6:33:14 AM UTC-4, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Frank Krygowski wrote:

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance t anfor appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.
It is this way (effectevely) already, isn't it?

I don't think so. We have a local case where a guy was convicted of raping and murdering a pre-teen boy.
His defense lawyers are still mounting appeals over 20 years later. And I think this matters because perps
think "If I get caught, I can get off on some technicality. And if I get convicted, I can try endless appeals and
I might get lucky and get out."

I don't know, but I suspect some of the death penalty defense attorneys are drawn to that job by moral
objections to execution. If the perp didn't face execution, but instead absolutely guaranteed sequestration,
there might be less chance of release. (Admittedly, this is just my idea. I'm not an expert at all.)

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as
hell, uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the
public for constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails,
YouTube channels, etc.
That would be torture. How people jump from being The White Knight And
Stuff to torture is beyond my understanding.

Being bored, uncomfortable and in ugly surroundings is torture?? Hell, for a lot of people that's just "work."

- Frank Krygowski

Then there's 'death by unintended consequences':

https://nypost.com/2020/02/05/man-wh...rs-found-dead/

'Reform' sounds great to people who have not thought deeply
about why we have what we have now.

I want you to think about what you just wrote. Just try to put together the words "deep thinking" and "Krygowski". I'm still back at his Biden-like remarks about he is proven unbigoted by having worked with other races.