DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 A pretty decent weapon can be made out of a tape cassette, and a handy garrote, with plenty of tape left over to create a trip line ambush to boot. Basically, a cassette in jail, closed in spaces where nobody looks down, is murder in a box. Flat out deadly weapons can be made with CDs. Never mind, you can pass hidden info with both of these formats. Can't do schit with an MP3 player if you only allow it to d/l music and you control the ISP...so yeah, WTF is this about? Even braided, the tape in a cassette tape's too weak to make an effective garrote. And what would you connect a trip line to in jail? Guard trips the ambush, and a sharpened cassette case swings down on a tape and fails to impale him in the temple? This actually sounds like a good Mythbusters submission: how many weapons can you make from a cassette tape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I must have struck a nerve. I was genuinely curious what your alternative is. I don't find this to be cruel and unusual punishment, thus negating your idea of selective constitutional application, but you do. Therefore, I am curious how you think this should be handled, which you have yet to explain. No nerve struck my friend. In fact, all of the emotional pleading in this thread is coming from those who want to lock him up and throw away the key. I say it's Constitutionally OK to to kill this guy, but not to keep him in solitary confinement for 27 years. I say this not because I sympathize with him or what he's done, but because it's the right thing to do with regard to the inalienable rights of all Americans. Yesterday I read part of a dissenting argument from Justice Antonin Scalia, whose views I rarely agree with, in a completely unrelated case. With regard to the conviction of another killer based largely on the testimony of the dying man he killed, Scalia writes: What has been taken away from him has been taken away from us all. In that case, even thought the guy was a scumbag and certainly the killer, the victim's testimony was not properly obtained (because he was dying). The judges chose to ignore this and allow the testimony, a move that admittedly "feels" good. This is a slippery slope which chips away at the individual rights of all Americans. My argument stems from the same place. The killer in solitary confinement for 27 years is being punished cruelly and unusually (IMO). If you don't think the punishment is cruel and unusual, then there is no problem I guess. If you do, then we're all losing out in a very real way. As far as what to do with the guy instead of solitary confinement, well that's not for me to decide. I'm sure there are very competent people in the US criminal justice system who can come up with an acceptable solution. Keep him in contact with other human beings, but locked down most of the time. I'm not suggesting that he be coddled in any way. Alternately, execute him and save the taxpayers a ton of money. I'll shed no tears for this man. Uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights at all costs. Tell that to the victims. You're being more of a bleeding heart here than any liberal I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 You're being more of a bleeding heart here than any liberal I've ever seen. Ah !@#$ the victims. Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 You're being more of a bleeding heart here than any liberal I've ever seen. Yeah, thats exactly what I am, "A bleeding heart Liberal" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ah !@#$ the victims. Better? Of course not. This has nothing to do with the victims. Yeah, thats exactly what I am, "A bleeding heart Liberal" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I didn't call you a liberal. I called you a bleeding heart. "Just think of the victims!" Incidentally, it humors greatly to see you guys fall back on this emotional argument. What a bunch of pansies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I didn't call you a liberal. I called you a bleeding heart. Maybe you should look in the mirror for that bleeding heart liberal you love so much. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/127471-do-you-consider-solitary-confinement-for-27-years/page__view__findpost__p__2114560 It is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Of course not. This has nothing to do with the victims. So capital punishment has nothing to do with revenge for the victims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe you should look in the mirror for that bleeding heart liberal you love so much. http://forums.twobil...ost__p__2114560 It is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. That's my opinion. You'll notice I also say that killing him is acceptable. Bleeding heart indeed. So capital punishment has nothing to do with revenge for the victims? The cruel and unusual punishment clause has nothing to do with the victim. Really, I know you're not dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The cruel and unusual punishment clause has nothing to do with the victim. Really, I know you're not dumb. 1) He said capital punishment. Not cruel and unusual. 2) Legally, you're right. 3) Practically...it's tough to argue that revenge ISN'T sometimes a factor in capital punishment. 4) It's also tough to argue that revenge is ever not a factor in cruel and unusual punishment...else, why would you use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 1) He said capital punishment. Not cruel and unusual. 2) Legally, you're right. 3) Practically...it's tough to argue that revenge ISN'T sometimes a factor in capital punishment. 4) It's also tough to argue that revenge is ever not a factor in cruel and unusual punishment...else, why would you use it. Missed that I guess, but this thread is not about capital punishment. In fact, none of my arguments have anything to do with capital punishment, except for the fact that I don't consider it cruel and unusual. Obviously, in some states capital punishment is not even a legal option and in those places it's kind of a moot point. Just to be clear (for anyone who cares), capital punishment is acceptable under the cruel and unusual punishment clause, while extended solitary confinement is not. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 So, are you basically advocating for a DaVinci panopticon so everybody can see everybody and be able to sing kumbaya? And you know what, I retract my earlier prediction that this won't be ruled unconstitutional. Because this is just the sort of thing judges love to do, and that I'm sure some in the Colorado legislature (or is this a federal institution?) would love to spend ten million dollars --- that the state doesn't have --- studying designs for a prison complex that somehow paradoxically keeps dangerous inmates away from other inmates and guards but simultaneously provides intimate contact. And then they'll either say that after ten million bucks, no solution can be found, or they'll actually build something for hundreds of millions and this dude will murder another guard on Day friggin' 2. Because sh-- always seems happen like that, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 So, are you basically advocating for a DaVinci panopticon so everybody can see everybody and be able to sing kumbaya? And you know what, I retract my earlier prediction that this won't be ruled unconstitutional. Because this is just the sort of thing judges love to do, and that I'm sure some in the Colorado legislature (or is this a federal institution?) would love to spend ten million dollars --- that the state doesn't have --- studying designs for a prison complex that somehow paradoxically keeps dangerous inmates away from other inmates and guards but simultaneously provides intimate contact. And then they'll either say that after ten million bucks, no solution can be found, or they'll actually build something for hundreds of millions and this dude will murder another guard on Day friggin' 2. Because sh-- always seems happen like that, doesn't it? No need to throw up strawmen or blow this out of proportion. The US Constitution is more important than your cynicism about how our bloated government works. I'm sure no superfluous time or money went into designing and building the various solitary-confinement-style Supermax prisons scattered across the country, right??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Even braided, the tape in a cassette tape's too weak to make an effective garrote. And what would you connect a trip line to in jail? Guard trips the ambush, and a sharpened cassette case swings down on a tape and fails to impale him in the temple? This actually sounds like a good Mythbusters submission: how many weapons can you make from a cassette tape? You can make more then you think. Melting the plastic of the casset it could be used as a shiv, I don't think it'd make a shank good enough. Easy to make prison weapons: Boiling water, if you can get grease from ramen noodles or shampoo its better. A toothbrush melted with a lighter and a razor blade in it. Socks with combination locks inside Bedsprings filed down on the edges Broken off pieces of the tile used in various places (sinks and toilets are steel) Electrical cords, broken CD parts, there are way more then people think. If you wanted to make a weapon the cassete is the last you'd go for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 It's doubtful capital punishment would be ruled unconditional since it was practiced during the lifetimes of the authors of the bill of rights,and there is no record of any of them objecting to it. Solitary confinement did not exist in their time so we can only guess at what they would have thought of it. I notice "revenge" shows up a lot on this thread. I thought the idea of criminal penalty's was deterrence? Leave revenge to God [sorry Gene]. My plan would be 2 completely separate yards,one for the GP and the other for killers who would otherwise be in SC. Let the murders mingle. If one off's the other, who cares? There would be no increased guard risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 It's doubtful capital punishment would be ruled unconditional since it was practiced during the lifetimes of the authors of the bill of rights,and there is no record of any of them objecting to it. Solitary confinement did not exist in their time so we can only guess at what they would have thought of it. I notice "revenge" shows up a lot on this thread. I thought the idea of criminal penalty's was deterrence? Leave revenge to God [sorry Gene]. My plan would be 2 completely separate yards,one for the GP and the other for killers who would otherwise be in SC. Let the murders mingle. If one off's the other, who cares? There would be no increased guard risk. Prison is not that easy. I really wish some correctional officers here would post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 It's doubtful capital punishment would be ruled unconditional since it was practiced during the lifetimes of the authors of the bill of rights,and there is no record of any of them objecting to it. Solitary confinement did not exist in their time so we can only guess at what they would have thought of it. I notice "revenge" shows up a lot on this thread. I thought the idea of criminal penalty's was deterrence? Leave revenge to God [sorry Gene]. My plan would be 2 completely separate yards,one for the GP and the other for killers who would otherwise be in SC. Let the murders mingle. If one off's the other, who cares? There would be no increased guard risk. If revenge is not part of the equation why are the victim's families brought in as witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I notice "revenge" shows up a lot on this thread. I thought the idea of criminal penalty's was deterrence? Leave revenge to God [sorry Gene]. Why? What's wrong with revenge? My plan would be 2 completely separate yards,one for the GP and the other for killers who would otherwise be in SC. Let the murders mingle. If one off's the other, who cares? There would be no increased guard risk. Ah, the "Escape from New York" plan. I've always thought that was pure genius. Throw 'em all in together with no guards and let them sort it out themselves. Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Ah, the "Escape from New York" plan. I've always thought that was pure genius. Throw 'em all in together with no guards and let them sort it out themselves. Works for me. Works for me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 It's doubtful capital punishment would be ruled unconditional since it was practiced during the lifetimes of the authors of the bill of rights,and there is no record of any of them objecting to it. Solitary confinement did not exist in their time so we can only guess at what they would have thought of it. I notice "revenge" shows up a lot on this thread. I thought the idea of criminal penalty's was deterrence? Leave revenge to God [sorry Gene]. My plan would be 2 completely separate yards,one for the GP and the other for killers who would otherwise be in SC. Let the murders mingle. If one off's the other, who cares? There would be no increased guard risk. No need to apologize because revenge has no place in the legal system [sorry Jim]. Your idea works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Free-range prisoners! or, Since it builds teamwork and bonding --- and could raise beaucoup bucks for states in fiscal trouble --- when does "The Running Man" start and more importantly, who hosts now? Is John O'Hurley available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts