Abolish prisons, says Angela Davis

[Huzington]

Abolish prisons, says Angela Davis
by Robyn Marshall
Angela Davis

Brisbane, Australia — African-American socialist Angela
Davis called for the abolition of all prisons during a public lecture
at the University of Queensland on Nov. 27.

[...]

In her lecture, attended by 150 people, Davis said there are now
2 million people incarcerated in U.S. prisons — 1 percent of the
U.S. population. In California alone, there are 33 prisons, 38
camps, 16 community correctional facilities and five tiny prisoner
mother facilities.

In 2002, there were 158,000 prisoners in the Californian prison
system, of whom 35 percent were Latinos, 30 percent were
African Americans and 29 percent were whites. Thirteen per cent
of inmates were being held for immigration violations. There are
now more women in prison in California than there were in
prison in the entire country in the early 1970s.

Davis recounted the history of the campaign to abolish prisons
in the U.S. In 1925, the first U.S. prison reformers said that
prisons should not be run by warders but by educators; prisons
would become a place for secondary schooling and even
university education. The first reformer was Thomas Osborn who
said prisons should be changed from being human "scrap
heaps" to human "repair shops."

Women are primarily incarcerated for drug offences (80 percent).
But, argued Davis, what can you say about a society where the
massive pharmaceutical industry makes billions of dollars,
pushing the taking of drugs on endless television
advertisements that claim that life will be magically better if you
take a particular drug?

These women can't afford those drugs so they are imprisoned
for stealing money to buy drugs, some of which are illegal.

The prison-industrial complex is much more than the sum of all
the prisons in the country. Davis described it as a set of
symbiotic relationships among correctional communities,
transnational corporations, media conglomerates, guards'
associations and legislative and court agendas.

Davis argued that prisons are considered so natural and so
normal that it is extremely hard to imagine life without them. She
argued that we must work to make prisons redundant by
creating a radically more democratic and socially just society
where retribution would no longer be seen as a means of
achieving justice.


Read the rest here:
http://sfbayview.com/121003/abolishprisons121003.shtml

I completely support this person on this issue. The prison system
in America must be reformed considerably, and ultimately done
away with.

[crackmonkey]

Thanks for the laugh, pal... sometimes this board does get a little too serious. :D

[Huzington]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Thanks for the laugh, pal... sometimes this board does get a little too serious. :D

Thankfully I know enough about psychology to be offended by
your message.

[Jude]

And replace them with what? Public floggings?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Jude
And replace them with what? Public floggings?

Hm... let me think! This is a really tough one... uhm....how about...
let's see...REHABILITATION! :rolleyes:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Huzington

I completely support this person on this issue. The prison system
in America must be reformed considerably, and ultimately done
away with.

Ok, ok. So let's review your stance on America: It's an evil country whose leaders should be punished but by punished you mean let go since places where people get punished (prisons) should be done away with. Wow, sounds like perfect communist logic to me!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Huzington


Hm... let me think! This is a really tough one... uhm....how about...
let's see...REHABILITATION! :rolleyes:

Don't you mean re-education?

[Jude]

Originally posted by Huzington


Hm... let me think! This is a really tough one... uhm....how about...
let's see...REHABILITATION! :rolleyes:

And rehab wouldn't entail emprisonment?

[JAR]

Huzington, do you realize what a nutcase you sound like?

You have Lenin and Stalin in your avatar, who were two guys who caused mass amounts of people to experience misery. This raises questions about what you would do if you got into power.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Huzington


Hm... let me think! This is a really tough one... uhm....how about...
let's see...REHABILITATION! :rolleyes:

Well there goes justice and deterence.


"Hey better not rape or murder...or we'll rehabilitate you."

That would sure scare me if I ever wanted to rob, assault or murder someone.


Well maybe if it were Soviet style "rehabilitation".....

[Huzington]

Originally posted by JAR
Huzington, do you realize what a nutcase you sound like?

You have Lenin and Stalin in your avatar, who were two guys who caused mass amounts of people to experience misery. This raises questions about what you would do if you got into power.

Stalin today:
http://www.mltranslations.org/Italy/Stalin.htm

"The gathering clouds of revolutionary storm bring to mind the teaching and practices of Stalin. The whole of Stalin's works, without exception, are an invaluable source from which communists, revolutionaries and patriots should take example.

"There is no field of social science to which Stalin has not contributed, to which he has not rigorously and scientifically applied Marxism-Leninism to hugely successful result.

"A study of Stalin's works confirm his status as a classical theoretician of Marxism, applying Marxism for decades along the then as yet undiscovered road to socialism and communism."

Discussions on Stalin:

http://elijahcraig.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&num=1065472646

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2310

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=13&topicdays=0&start=100

Here is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist view of Comrade Stalin, his successes and failures, and his impact on the International Communist Movement:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Avakian on the Question of Stalin and "Stalinism"

edited for copyright violation. See my post on page 2.

[Gem]

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."
-Voltaire.


Ironic. Just uterly ironic.

Gem

[JAR]

Originally posted by Huzington
[snip]
Stalin led the Soviet people in arduous and heroic struggle to defeat German imperialism, led by Hitler, in World War 2.[snip]

Stalin, like Hitler, was an imperialist. On August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact. It was officially a non-aggression agreement, but it actually included secret terms that divided Poland and most of eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Two weeks after the German army invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Soviet troops crossed the eastern frontier of Poland and advanced to the point agreed upon in the Nazi-Soviet Pact. After strengthening its position in Poland, the Soviet Union attacked Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania. I got this information from page 504-505 of the sections titled "Soviet Foreign Policy Between Wars" and "Territorial Expansion" of the section titled "History" of the article titled "Russia" from the "Q-R" volume of "The World Book Encyclopedia" copyrighted in 1962.

[Mike B.]

Well if Angela Davis says it...It must be true!
;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Gem


Ironic. Just uterly ironic.

Gem

Not at all, a simple admission that he is pulling our chains.

[Pyrrho]

Huzington, Forum rules prohibit reposting of entire articles. Please reduce the amount of text you have posted from Bob Avakian's article and provide a link to the complete work.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Huzington, Forum rules prohibit reposting of entire articles. Please reduce the amount of text you have posted from Bob Avakian's article and provide a link to the complete work.

FYI, I reported Huzzes counter revolutionary mis-appropriation of of the sweat of another worker's brow.

I really hate it when people report something and do not have the balls to say it. A basic personality flaw, methinks. Listening, Steve?

[shemp]

As we all know, Stalin never imprisoned anybody. But millions of people were rehabilitated to death.

[gnome]

I'm certain I don't agree with the conclusions, that prisons should be abolished... but... I do agree that prison is often counterproductive for some offenders.

I also agree that the economics of the so-called "Prison-industrial complex" may serve to inhibit addressing the matter.

[Troll]

Most murderers, not of the serial kind, had one victim in mind and just wanted to kill them. They had no intent of going around and killing anyone else. So if we let everyone kill the person they want to kill we can assume they are rehabilitated because they can't kill the same person again. So we should never put people in jail for single killings and we can save society the cost of rehabilitation as well.

Hey, I don't agree with what I said, but it's the next step in abolishing prisons

[JAR]

Originally posted by JAR
After strengthening its position in Poland, the Soviet Union attacked Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania. I got this information from page 504-505 of the sections titled "Soviet Foreign Policy Between Wars" and "Territorial Expansion" of the section titled "History" of the article titled "Russia" from the "Q-R" volume of "The World Book Encyclopedia" copyrighted in 1962.
I'd like to note that I was incorrect when I said above that the Soviet Union attacked Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. According to page 15 of "A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40", Stalin absorbed Estonia by inviting the foreign minister of Estonia to Moscow on September 22, and one week later an agreement was signed that gave Moscow the right to station troops, aircraft, and naval units in that country. In effect, Estonia became part of the Soviet Union.

Then the foreign ministers of Latvia and Lithuania were invited to Moscow during the first week of October, and on the fifth and eleventh of that month, they also signed "mutual assistance" treaties with the USSR that would lead to them becoming part of the Soviet Union.

There was no attack by Soviet Union against Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I mistakenly thought there was because in the World Book Encyclopedia article I originally got the information from, it said, "After strengthening its position in Poland, the Soviet Union turned on Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania."

I misinterpreted "turned on" as meaning "attacked." It didn't occur to me that something else could be meant by "turned on."

[hgc]

Originally posted by Huzington

...

"The gathering clouds of revolutionary storm bring to mind the teaching and practices of Stalin. The whole of Stalin's works, without exception, are an invaluable source from which communists, revolutionaries and patriots should take example.

... This is where you go off the rails, Kookamonga. Never a better sign of a fundementalist nutter than "no exceptions."

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Huzington
Abolish prisons, says Angela Davis
by Robyn Marshall
Angela Davis

Huz:

Are you ready to discuss the two million rapes committed by the Red Army in Germany after WWII?

[JAR]

Originally posted by NightG1

Huz:

Are you ready to discuss the two million rapes committed by the Red Army in Germany after WWII?
Well, you have to remember NightG1, Huzington will not discuss the two million rapes committed by the Red Army because, according to him, it is "not relevant." ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Huzington
Abolish prisons, says Angela Davis



Absurd. Where are we going to store all the black dudes if we get rid of prisons? Answer me that. Sheesh. Get rid of prisons, have black dudes running all over. Stupid. You gotta think these things out you commie nutter, you.

edit for spelling cuz these deep ideas deserve the best:D

[peptoabysmal]

Jeebus...

Now that Hanoi John is running for president, it looks like I'm going to be forced to re-live the 60's.

*sigh*

Who's next, Timothy Leary? :alc:

[Ladewig]

I'm having a hard time understanding the step from premises to conclusion.

She maintains:

There are numerous abuses by police and prosecuters (often but not always based on class and race).
There are numerous civil rights abuses by prison officials.
Some sentences are not appropriate for specific crimes (e.g. drug possession).
Prison wages are so miniscule that they might be classified as a form of slavery.

Therefore:
Prisons should be abolished.

I see those premises (which to some degree are true) as leading to the conclusion that the criminal justice system should be reformed. Such reformation should take place not just because of the appropriateness of it but also because such reforms will reduce costs in the long run.

Abolishing prisons and replacing them with a sytems of forced reformations does not solve all the problems listed in the premises. It will still be possible to falsely convict people and send them into reformation programs. Such programs can be run by crooked or prejudiced administrators who might insist that a particular criminal will always require a bit more reformation.

And of course, what should be done with the unreformable?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Where did anyone get the idea that Angela Davis is even relevant?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shemp
As we all know, Stalin never imprisoned anybody. But millions of people were rehabilitated to death. :D

Pol Pot, Mao, etc. They all rehabilitated millions to death.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I'm having a hard time understanding the step from premises to conclusion.

She maintains:

There are numerous abuses by police and prosecuters (often but not always based on class and race).
There are numerous civil rights abuses by prison officials.
Some sentences are not appropriate for specific crimes (e.g. drug possession).
Prison wages are so miniscule that they might be classified as a form of slavery.

Therefore:
Prisons should be abolished.

I see those premises (which to some degree are true) as leading to the conclusion that the criminal justice system should be reformed. Such reformation should take place not just because of the appropriateness of it but also because such reforms will reduce costs in the long run.

Abolishing prisons and replacing them with a sytems of forced reformations does not solve all the problems listed in the premises. It will still be possible to falsely convict people and send them into reformation programs. Such programs can be run by crooked or prejudiced administrators who might insist that a particular criminal will always require a bit more reformation.

And of course, what should be done with the unreformable? Excellent response. I was thinking on the same lines. I wish I could have made as eloquent of an argument but fortunately I don't have to.

The conclusion is a non sequitur.

[Outcast]

I do agree that we do need to reform the prison system. It is over crowded and over priced for what we get for our tax payers dollars.

I suggest:

If a person is found guilty of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt, they would be executed the next day.

If he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt give them life in prison.

Pay Russia $10.00/day to take care of our lifers and long term criminals. They have lots of empty gulags in Siberia they could use.

To the three strikes and your out add four strikes and you fry.

Then we can work on rehab for the minor criminals.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Outcast
I do agree that we do need to reform the prison system. It is over crowded and over priced for what we get for our tax payers dollars.

I suggest:

If a person is found guilty of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt, they would be executed the next day.

If he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt give them life in prison.

Pay Russia $10.00/day to take care of our lifers and long term criminals. They have lots of empty gulags in Siberia they could use.

To the three strikes and your out add four strikes and you fry.

Then we can work on rehab for the minor criminals.

I hope one day to understand this sort of thinking.....But then again, it depends on if these are your opinions or just your favorite trolling lines.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by The Fool


I hope one day to understand this sort of thinking.....But then again, it depends on if these are your opinions or just your favorite trolling lines.

I don't have to troll just stating my opinion is enough and this is my opinion.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Stalin also contributed a lot to the "many fields of science". What he contributed was many examples of how NOT to conduct science.

Charlie (Stalin a good guy? sheesh) Monoxide

[Ladewig]

Pay Russia $10.00/day to take care of our lifers and long term criminals. They have lots of empty gulags in Siberia they could use.

You seem to have glossed over the passing of a Constitutional amendment repealing the last half of the 8th amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Also, if one is to follow the Bill of Rights and allow convicts access to the civil and criminal court systems, then transporting them back to the U.S. for every court appearance could be rather costly.

To the three strikes and you're out add four strikes and you fry.

Given the number of people who have been falsely convicted of felonies and crimes incorrectly classified as felonies, death would be a rather inappropriate sentence.

[headscratcher4]

You're gonna have to take my word for it...the gulag system was completely voluntary, as were many of the deaths...no, really. Completely voluntary. :D

[Outcast]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
You're gonna have to take my word for it...the gulag system was completely voluntary, as were many of the deaths...no, really. Completely voluntary. :D No, I didn’t realize it was voluntary, but that would make sense. Since being in the Gulag was a lot like being in Stalag 13, I can see why people would volunteer to go there. As for as the deaths go, the USSR has always been a humane and progressive state. Even after 50 years has passed, our doctor assisted suicide program pales in comparison to their doctor assisted suicide program.

[Skeptic]

I misinterpreted "turned on" as meaning "attacked." It didn't occur to me that something else could be meant by "turned on."

Must... resist... obvious... jokes...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Outcast
If a person is found guilty of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt, they would be executed the next day.

If he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt give them life in prison.


Can you give an example of a hypothetical situation where someone that is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" but not "Beyond a shadow of doubt"?

[Outcast]

Originally posted by gnome
Can you give an example of a hypothetical situation where someone that is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" but not "Beyond a shadow of doubt"? reasonable doubt (http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=59&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C) is a legal term. reasonable doubt n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial. It dose allow for some doubt in a person's mind as to the guilt or innocence of a person. For example Timothy McVeigh was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Shadow of a doubt" is a common usage term and not a legal term.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Ladewig
You seem to have glossed over the passing of a Constitutional amendment repealing the last half of the 8th amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. I fail to see how being put in a Soviet style Gulag could be an more cruel and unusual then doing hard time in an American prison. The Gulags were actually labor camps and not prisons. By allowing access by journalists and human rights activists conditions at the Gulags could be kept humane.
Also, if one is to follow the Bill of Rights and allow convicts access to the civil and criminal court systems, then transporting them back to the U.S. for every court appearance could be rather costly. What court appearances? Once a person is convicted, they seldom have need to reappear in court. If further contact is need with the American legal system, then video conferencing can be set up.Given the number of people who have been falsely convicted of felonies and crimes incorrectly classified as felonies, death would be a rather inappropriate sentence. I was thinking more along the lines of a person that is doing life in prison and kills an inmate or guard. Or escapes from prison and commits a lesser felony such as kidnaping or aggravate rape. What needs to be done is to clarify which crimes should apply to the three strikes and your out law and which crimes should not.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Outcast
reasonable doubt (http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=59&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C) is a legal term. It dose allow for some doubt in a person's mind as to the guilt or innocence of a person. For example Timothy McVeigh was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Shadow of a doubt" is a common usage term and not a legal term.

I'm aware of this. I'm asking you to propose an example for more specific discussion...

[EGarrett]

Originally posted by gnome


I'm aware of this. I'm asking you to propose an example for more specific discussion...

Possibly...

Reasonable doubt: All logic, motive and evidence points to you killing the person but no one actually witnessed the crime.

Shadow of a doubt: You're caught killing the person...either in public, by several police officers or on videotape.

[Ladewig]

I fail to see how being put in a Soviet style Gulag could be an more cruel and unusual then doing hard time in an American prison. The Gulags were actually labor camps and not prisons.

Serving time in a area where temperatures can reach 40° below zero is without a doubt unusual and could easily be argued as cruel. I would describe not allowing family to visit the prisoners as c&u.

By allowing access by journalists and human rights activists conditions at the Gulags could be kept humane.

In Texas there are prisons that do not always grant access to journalists and human rights activists. Ensuring that access halfway around the world may be overly optimistic.

What court appearances? Once a person is convicted, they seldom have need to reappear in court. If further contact is need with the American legal system, then video conferencing can be set up.

Prisoners can appear in court as witnesses in other crimes, as plantiffs or defendants in civil cases, and as suspects in other crimes. I'm not convinced that videoconferencing is fair and just in all these situations. If I were a lawyer, then I might distrust the government to provide a secure videoconference line for me to talk to my clients.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Roadtoad]

Well, this is a sweet idea. Except, when I was driving for a state contractor here in CA, I actually had to spend some time running trucks into and out of California's prison system.

Perhaps if Ms. Davis had ever spent some time with some of those model human beings we have incarcerated in our prisons, she might think twice about releasing them into the general population. People like rapists, murderers, thieves, and the like.

Truth to tell, I find it odd that she would suggest that these people be turned loose, but then, Davis makes enough from her salary as a tenured professor, not to mention speaker's fees, that she probably believes she'd never have to live next door to any of them. Not too many of these guys live in her neighborhood. Most of them would move into lower income areas like mine, like North Highlands. It's an area where we have a very small police presence. (Hey, in areas where you don't have big money, the cops aren't really willing to go. No political power around here.)

I remember well lockdowns, the constant threat of violence, having to lock the doors to my truck as I drove in and out, having to ride with a guard in the buddy seat, not being allowed to even carry a 9/16ths wrench so I could readjust my brakes, because if these people got their hands on it, SOMEONE MIGHT DIE. Most of these people are violent to begin with, regardless of the reason behind it. You put them in with other violent people, and yes, they do become more violent. There is a constant threat once you lock people up.

But, I would also hasten to add, that among those prisons Ms. Davis cites, there are honor camps, there are minimum security facilities, and there are also other options open to our courts, such as house arrest. Violence is lower in most of those facilities, and in some, it's almost non-existent. (Not all. Keep in mind, we've got a serious problem here with the California Youth Authority.)

A significant problem we're having with our prisons has more to do with corruption among our prison guards, and within the penal system within this state. However, you sure as hell don't want to turn these guys loose, claiming that just because they're locked up, that's creating the problem. It ain't so, kids. And many of these guys wind up back behind bars, not because the system is out to get them, but as one woman working for the Prison Industries Authority told me, they're "stuck on stupid." Many of the guys I've seen leaving the prison actually have some skills. There's companies out there that will give them a chance, if they'll just put some effort into getting straight.

For whatever reason, they choose not to. They decide they'll take the easy route, and back they go to Folsom, to Corcoran, to Pelican Bay. They don't have to do this to themselves.

I've got friends where I work who have felony convictions, and yet, they've taken the time to turn their lives around. These are good people, and I've welcomed them into my home without a concern. Life is made up of choices. They chose to make something of themselves.

[Graham]

Roadtoad, you rock - how would you like to adopt me? We could get married but we might have trouble finding a state willing to do it!




(just thought I'd metnion that . . . ahem . . . carry on . . . nothing to see here . . . ahem . . . how about them bears, eh?)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Graham
Roadtoad, you rock - how would you like to adopt me? We could get married but we might have trouble finding a state willing to do it!




(just thought I'd metnion that . . . ahem . . . carry on . . . nothing to see here . . . ahem . . . how about them bears, eh?)

I think the lovely and gracious Peggy would object.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I think the lovely and gracious Peggy would object.

Probably the loving and gracious Toni too!

I gues our love will just have to remain distant an unfulfilled then :D

You could help me out with something though. I'm writing (or trying to write) a short story about someone travelling across America in a camper van.

If you wanted to contact the police on a CB, what frequency/channel would you tune to?

Graham

[Outcast]

Originally posted by gnome


I'm aware of this. I'm asking you to propose an example for more specific discussion... Ok look at Timothy McVeigh, there are people out there that feel he is not guilty. One of the reasons he was so quickly executed was part of the government cover up. McVeigh was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. McVeigh, in my opinion should never gotten the death penalty. I am not sure why the judge allowed the victims of the federal building to testify in court prior to Mcveigh being found guilty. They had no prior knowledge of the crime to add to the trial

Someone like Deanna Laney, who killed her two children with a rock, should have gotten the death penalty the next day. There is no doubt any anyone mind that she did it, even though there was no video tape or witness. The only question was sanity.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Graham


Probably the loving and gracious Toni too!

I gues our love will just have to remain distant an unfulfilled then :D

You could help me out with something though. I'm writing (or trying to write) a short story about someone travelling across America in a camper van.

If you wanted to contact the police on a CB, what frequency/channel would you tune to?

Graham

Channel 9 in most of the US. Most police monitor that channel, as well as EMS.

Funny story I remember hearing from a buddy of mine who was on a cross country run. I'll have to tell it later, though.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Channel 9 in most of the US. Most police monitor that channel, as well as EMS.

Funny story I remember hearing from a buddy of mine who was on a cross country run. I'll have to tell it later, though.

Thanks for that :)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Outcast
Ok look at Timothy McVeigh, there are people out there that feel he is not guilty. One of the reasons he was so quickly executed was part of the government cover up. McVeigh was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. McVeigh, in my opinion should never gotten the death penalty. I am not sure why the judge allowed the victims of the federal building to testify in court prior to Mcveigh being found guilty. They had no prior knowledge of the crime to add to the trial

Someone like Deanna Laney, who killed her two children with a rock, should have gotten the death penalty the next day. There is no doubt any anyone mind that she did it, even though there was no video tape or witness. The only question was sanity.

Ok... then here's my question... in whom would the power to declare guilt "beyond shadow of a doubt" be vested, in order to move justice rapidly? The police officers arresting her? If you're going to use the court system... are you proposing bumping every other case pending at the time to make way for handling this one right away? That would require SOMEONE decide that this one deserves the fast-track. Who gets that power? How quickly can "beyond a shadow of a doubt" be established?

Are we to trust that the power not to be abused, just because as far as we can tell from watching TV, the person is definitely guilty?

Can you get any shortcuts on justice because something LOOKS like a slam-dunk?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Huzington


Hm... let me think! This is a really tough one... uhm....how about...
let's see...REHABILITATION! :rolleyes:

"Well, you just killed 3 people for crack money, you've been through and failed several detox programs, you have been given job-training, (you've been to 1 out of 5 interviews), the job you did get you were fired from for not showing up...so how's rehabilitation working for you?"

"Great, just great. Stick 'em up."

Rehabilitation works only if the parasite wants to change.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Outcast
Ok look at Timothy McVeigh, there are people out there that feel he is not guilty. One of the reasons he was so quickly executed was part of the government cover up. McVeigh was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty. McVeigh, in my opinion should never gotten the death penalty. I am not sure why the judge allowed the victims of the federal building to testify in court prior to Mcveigh being found guilty. They had no prior knowledge of the crime to add to the trial

*snip*


What are you talking about?

From what I know about the McVeigh case (taken from TIME and Newsweek magazines), the guy confessed to the crime, said he was proud of it, and insisted in being executed. Where the **** is the reasonable doubt you are talking about?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Huzington

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Avakian on the Question of Stalin and "Stalinism"
This post has been reported for copyright violation. I wil remove the full body of the article. If Huzington wishes to provide a source link, I will add it to his post. In the mean time, those who wish to see the article can PM me and I will PM it back.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Upchurch

This post has been reported for copyright violation. I wil remove the full body of the article. If Huzington wishes to provide a source link, I will add it to his post. In the mean time, those who wish to see the article can PM me and I will PM it back.

So, Bob Avakian -- avowed Marxist -- is going to challenge this post because he will feel that his copyright has been violated? ;)