death penalty

[Rhiannon]

Becuz of standarized tests, many poor performance schools are getting less money, and higher performance schools are receiving more money. Also, there have been massive educational budget cuts becuz this money has been redirected to the military and other "federal programs" that Bush has decided that should receive money. Schools just dont demand money and automatically get it. Have you ever done a project proposal for Title I, V or other federal program? The requirements and processes are so lengthy it'll make you cry.

is any of that true?

No, i just like pulling info out my ass :roll:

[Agamemnus]

The standardized test thing (this is for public schools) is true is Massachusetts, and because of that, schools spend more time forcing more students to "prepare" for these tests than teaching other students more advanced stuff. It's not a lot of money that is diverted to better ranking schools, but it's there.

Rhiannon, I agree with you on most of those things, but you're still saying something completely opposite my experience with regards to "discipline issues".

[adosorken]

moral, values, THE BIBLE :king:

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Get real.

Aga...like she said, exceptions to the rule exist. That's true of anything. For example, you're an exception to the rule that all coders who use GOTOs suck. You don't suck but you use GOTOs. Get the idea?

OK it was a bad/inaccurate comparison but it illustrates my point regardless.

[Zap]

Boredom: I'm still in school, and I can tell you that boredom highly affect concentration/dicipline. I can tell it from myself, and from all other students I have seen, that if the subject is boring they start doing other stuff (becoming 'undiciplined').
Also many students (boys in my age ecspecialy) tends to have a lot of extra energy, and would much rather be running around than doing french grammar, so instead of getting shouted at, the teacher will send the persons on a run around the school, and voila it's suddenly much more easy to concentrate, without internal anoyances.

About the money thing, I suppose you're speaking of US, in many european countries, every school gets the same amount of money per student, and extra for 'problem' students.

Also schools in DK has begun to teach from the principel 'seven intelegences', instead of just the mathematigel-logical intelligence (the stuff an ordinary IQ test tests). That way, the teaching is structered so it fits every student more than the standard-pensum-for-all princip. For example, in the lower grades, a kid with a higher physical inteligence (<- not exact word but describes what I mean), will work 10 minutes, and go outside kicking a ball for 3, and then he'll be working again.

[Rhiannon]

Yup, that was Gardener's multipe intelligence theory, where he believed that there were seven (now 8, last one added was emotional i believe) different intelligences. Here is a good article about it: http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed410226.html

[Agamemnus]

Yeah, yeah.

I took the test.

I had no idea how to score it... It confused the hell out of me.. until I figured out that the answer sheet should have been attached to the questions..

[oracle]

What age constitutes adulthood? 16? 18? 21?

My point was, around the world, people under 18 are not executed in developed countries, except the US. So 18 would be the age for adulthood in this case. Although when I buy a plane ticked it's 12...

And you just disproved your second statement...

No I didn't. The witness proved he was retarded, and the US still killed him.

Maybe you should learn more about how the US government works before flaming. The President doesn't have the power to overturn the death penalty. (Your preconceived notions about Texas probably aren't helping a whole lot either.)

Which state executes the most people? Particularly black people? Thus, to the world, Texas is percieved as a bloodthirsty state, even if they're not. This is a generalisation we make from the evidence given, not some random saying. Anyway, I'm sure your president has the power to overturn the death penalty. If he can't, who can? OK, so maybe it needs 2/3rds vote in the senate. Surely your politicians can get that many votes if the public wanted it? But they don't want it, do they.

Anyway, nobody seems to have rebutted the point that the state is commiting a hypocracy when it kills those who it has deemed wrong for killing.

I'm sorry if it sounds like a flame, but you must realise some day that USofAians' government is not even close to perfect on these things, and you need to start being a bit more proactive about it, instead of throwing in a new government at each election...

(And the "American" thing - I've explained this in another thread - around the world people do not associate "American" with Canadians/Mexicans/other "actual" americans, thus there's no need to be offended so badly. Just point it out nicely, and eventually people will start using it correctly.)

It really comes down to this: Should someone who has raped, brutally tortured, then killed his children and wife, should we the taxpayers be forced (at gun point, actually) to pay for his food and shelter for the rest of his life?

Why not make him do work for the rest of his life? In a corn field surrounded by high fence or something? Plenty of prisoners could be made to work (or even given the option - I guarantee you prisoners would rather work than be locked in a cell). This, of course, wouldn't apply to psychaiactrially (sp?) unstable prisoners, but I'm sure this would go some way to helping pay their food/"accomodation". And it teaches good habits for those who will be released.

[SJ Zero]

My response to the original question:

Nobody has the right to take the life of another person. Nobody.

[RST]

For the most part, I'd have to agree, if only because juries are imperfect, prejudice does play a role in justice, and people have been proven innocent... posthumously.

Just some things I'd like to clarify:
The US President doesn't have the power to make laws; he only has the power to veto ones that are proposed. If he does veto them, then they go back to Congress where they may be passed with 2/3 majority. He does, however, have the ability to grant pardons.

In any case, the state governments, not Congress, decide whether or not to have the death penalty. The Supreme Court might be able to rule death sentences as "cruel or unusual punishment", making it unconstitutional and illiegal.

Whether it's more expensive to imprison someone for life or execute them is debateable. If I have time I'll find some numbers. But should money really play a role (or at least, more of a role than it does today) in the justice system?

Someone made a remark about a certain amount of assurance needed for conviction - Juries are told to convict only if they feel the persons guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Those who argue about eyewitnesses should look up "confabulation" at some site that talks about psychology. Eyewitnesses have, when asked, described guns - even if none were present. They're not lying, per se, but the human memory is more complex than a lot of people think.

IMHO, "adult" should not be defined by age, but by the persons mental maturity. If the issue is in question, they should be tried as juviniles (sp).

[PlayGGY]

My response to the original question:

Nobody has the right to take the life of another person. Nobody.

Does anyone have the right to make people spend the rest of their life in a prison?



And what about self-defense? If someone is trying to kill you, or trying to kill someone in your family, are you seriously saying you don't have the right to kill them? This sounds like leftist dreaming to me. (No, I am not a right-winger, I am a libertarian).