 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are just > > two: > > > > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect > > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught. > > Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety > factor and other elements involved? IOW, is your not breaking the law > *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other, > possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety? > > > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational drugs > > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. > > Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're talking > on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of prison is not > a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and the > lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a general > deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred? > > > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* does > > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain silly. > > I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a > deterrent. I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those words and with that emphasis. Never the less, that has been your frequently repeated claim. I have looked through you comments on this thread and cut and pasted the following comments on jail and deterrence. - The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent. - Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that is is. - These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. - Jail was never meant to be a deterrent - It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking they will not get *caught*. You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is not a deterrent. You never failed to acknowledge that it can be or that it often is. Instead, you constantly denied that it is a deterrent and never allowed for the possibility that it is. In effect, you were indeed saying that it is never a deterrent. > You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people > who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that *is* > deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the fear of > prison is a general deterrent. And, point out one person who was deterred > does not make it generally a deterrent. Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is high school level? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are just > > two: > > > > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect > > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught. > > Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety > factor and other elements involved? IOW, is your not breaking the law > *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other, > possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety? > > > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational drugs > > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. > > Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're talking > on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of prison is not > a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and the > lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a general > deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred? > > > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* does > > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain silly. > > I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a > deterrent. I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those words and with that emphasis. Never the less, that has been your frequently repeated claim. I have looked through you comments on this thread and cut and pasted the following comments on jail and deterrence. - The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent. - Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that is is. - These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. - Jail was never meant to be a deterrent - It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking they will not get *caught*. You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is not a deterrent. You never failed to acknowledge that it can be or that it often is. Instead, you constantly denied that it is a deterrent and never allowed for the possibility that it is. In effect, you were indeed saying that it is never a deterrent. > You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people > who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that *is* > deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the fear of > prison is a general deterrent. And, point out one person who was deterred > does not make it generally a deterrent. Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is high school level? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Peter Aitken wrote: > > >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" > > crimes. > >> > >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth > > that > >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both violent > > and > >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*. > > > > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like a > > college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially investigating > > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in. > > So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research > couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's quite > a leap there, mate. I said nothing of the sort. If you want to engage in a serious conversation you ought to read a message - and understand it - before replying. If your research is so great let us see it so we can judge it. > > This > > is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that the fear of punishment > > works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of punishment does > > not act as a deterrent so why should anyone take your paper seriously? > > Why do you think that because I don't believe that the fear of prison is an > effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is either laughable > or not to be taken seriously? It sounds like you've assumed *your* > conclusions concerning the paper without having read it. > Again, I never said anything of the sort. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Is it that you have no response to what I actually said? Or can't you understand what I said? > > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are just > > two: > > > > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect > > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught. > > Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety > factor and other elements involved? > IOW, is your not breaking the law > *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other, > possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety? > Still again you did not read or understand what I said. Did you miss the "with perfect safety" part of my sentence? > > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational drugs > > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. > > Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're talking > on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of prison is not > a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and the > lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a general > deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred? Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison population is evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison is not *enough* of a deterrent to prevent crime or reduce it significantly - I have no argument with this. But that's not the question and it's not what you have been claiming. Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a deterrent, you would have to show that it is relatively rare for people to *not* committ crimes because of this fear - and you have not done so. As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument would be that because lots of people still smoke, fears of the health dangers do not serve as a general deterrent against smoking. You would totally overlook the millions of people who quit or never took it up because of the health dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people who gave up or never started committing crimes because of the fear of prison. No, I cannot prove how many peopoe there are, but because *you* are making the claim that fear of prison is not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show that they do not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense. > > > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* does > > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain silly. > > I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a > deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people > who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that *is* > deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the fear of > prison is a general deterrent. If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and others you'll need to provide some numbers and facts. Peter Aitken |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Peter Aitken wrote: > > >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" > > crimes. > >> > >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth > > that > >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both violent > > and > >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*. > > > > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like a > > college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially investigating > > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in. > > So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research > couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's quite > a leap there, mate. I said nothing of the sort. If you want to engage in a serious conversation you ought to read a message - and understand it - before replying. If your research is so great let us see it so we can judge it. > > This > > is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that the fear of punishment > > works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of punishment does > > not act as a deterrent so why should anyone take your paper seriously? > > Why do you think that because I don't believe that the fear of prison is an > effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is either laughable > or not to be taken seriously? It sounds like you've assumed *your* > conclusions concerning the paper without having read it. > Again, I never said anything of the sort. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Is it that you have no response to what I actually said? Or can't you understand what I said? > > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are just > > two: > > > > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect > > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught. > > Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety > factor and other elements involved? > IOW, is your not breaking the law > *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other, > possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety? > Still again you did not read or understand what I said. Did you miss the "with perfect safety" part of my sentence? > > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational drugs > > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. > > Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're talking > on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of prison is not > a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and the > lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a general > deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred? Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison population is evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison is not *enough* of a deterrent to prevent crime or reduce it significantly - I have no argument with this. But that's not the question and it's not what you have been claiming. Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a deterrent, you would have to show that it is relatively rare for people to *not* committ crimes because of this fear - and you have not done so. As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument would be that because lots of people still smoke, fears of the health dangers do not serve as a general deterrent against smoking. You would totally overlook the millions of people who quit or never took it up because of the health dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people who gave up or never started committing crimes because of the fear of prison. No, I cannot prove how many peopoe there are, but because *you* are making the claim that fear of prison is not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show that they do not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense. > > > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* does > > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain silly. > > I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a > deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people > who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that *is* > deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the fear of > prison is a general deterrent. If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and others you'll need to provide some numbers and facts. Peter Aitken |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
> wrote: > >> The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being >> purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange Commission. >> MS did nothing that no one else would have done, and has done. > > > I don't think that anyone is questioning the fact that it is done. > The problem is that it is illegal, and she got caught. > > >> She was not involved in insider trading and she defrauded no one. > > > Apparently she was involved. She had inside information of an > upcoming announcement that would cause a company's stock to plummet. > Acting on that information, she dumped her stock before the > information became public. As a result, someone else ended up losing > money on those stocks. > No one was defrauded by MS lying about that infamous limit order. I suspect she did illegal insider trading, but notice that she was never charged with that. Until she is charged and convicted of that crime, she is presumed innocent and all the public outrage against her is misplaced. The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an insider trading indictment because that's difficult to prove. But they knew a manipulative controlling b! like Martha would perjure herself if they set a trap by lying to her about an insider trading investigation. It's called "entrapment." Best regards, Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On 03/15/2004 7:33 AM, in article ,
" > opined: > John Gaughan > wrote: >> Jack Nichols wrote: >>> Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of >>> corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's >>> ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony. > >> A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you actually >> believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect from the little people, >> who outnumber the "important" people and as a group have more votes. > > The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being purpetrated > on the public by the Securities & Exchange Commission. MS did nothing > that no one else would have done, and has done. Next time federal prosecutors want to ask you some questions go ahead and lie. We'll see where you end up. She was not involved in > insider trading and she defrauded no one. The SEC is using MS to divert > the public's attention against the real corportate theives who have > ripped off the life savings of many hard working individuals. This is > really obvious by the fact that the SEC tried to nab Martha Steward on > securities fraud, which the judge said was completely bogus. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On 03/15/2004 7:33 AM, in article ,
" > opined: > John Gaughan > wrote: >> Jack Nichols wrote: >>> Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of >>> corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's >>> ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony. > >> A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you actually >> believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect from the little people, >> who outnumber the "important" people and as a group have more votes. > > The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being purpetrated > on the public by the Securities & Exchange Commission. MS did nothing > that no one else would have done, and has done. Next time federal prosecutors want to ask you some questions go ahead and lie. We'll see where you end up. She was not involved in > insider trading and she defrauded no one. The SEC is using MS to divert > the public's attention against the real corportate theives who have > ripped off the life savings of many hard working individuals. This is > really obvious by the fact that the SEC tried to nab Martha Steward on > securities fraud, which the judge said was completely bogus. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" >> > crimes. >> >> >> >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth >> > that >> >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both >> >> violent >> > and >> >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*. >> > >> > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like >> > a college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially > investigating >> > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in. >> >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's >> quite a leap there, mate. > > I said nothing of the sort. You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal opinions? > If you want to engage in a serious > conversation you ought to read a message - and understand it - before > replying. I do. But, you should take your own advice since you're jumping to great conclusions based on nothing. > If your research is so great let us see it so we can judge it. "...so great..."? >> > This >> > is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that the fear of > punishment >> > works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of punishment does >> > not act as a deterrent so why should anyone take your paper seriously? >> >> Why do you think that because I don't believe that the fear of prison is > an >> effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is either laughable >> or not to be taken seriously? It sounds like you've assumed *your* >> conclusions concerning the paper without having read it. > > Again, I never said anything of the sort. You said *precisely* that. > Why do you keep putting words in > my mouth? Is it that you have no response to what I actually said? Or > can't you understand what I said? Or is it that your statement was exactly what I described: that, based on what you see my opinion to be, my paper can't possibly be anything more than a biased polemic meant to support only my position. Is that not what you wrote above? >> > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are >> > just two: >> > >> > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect >> > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught. >> >> Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety >> factor and other elements involved? >> IOW, is your not breaking the law >> *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other, >> possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety? > > Still again you did not read or understand what I said. Did you miss the > "with perfect safety" part of my sentence? There's no such thing as "perfect safety". And, you didn't answer my question. Is the *only* reason you don't do it is the fear of getting caught and sent to jail? >> > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational > drugs >> > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. >> >> Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're >> talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of >> prison is > not >> a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and >> the lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a >> general deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred? > > Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison population is > evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison is not *enough* of a > deterrent to prevent crime or reduce it significantly - I have no argument > with this. Then you have no argument with me. I've stated that the belief that it's a deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent" supports that. > But that's not the question and it's not what you have been > claiming. Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a deterrent, you would > have to show that it is relatively rare for people to *not* committ crimes > because of this fear - and you have not done so. Your understanding of logic then is lacking. I don't have to prove a negative. One can *not* prove a negative. How do you prove the fear of prison is not a deterrent? You can't, not directly. Instead, you have to indirectly show the claim that it *is* a deterrent to be unsupported by fact. And here are (a few of) the facts: the prison population in 1990 was 4.1 million people. In 2002, the prison population was 6.7 million people. That's a growth of 54%. In that same time period, the US population grew from 248 million people to 281 million people. A growth of 13%. The prison population (that's just the people who were *convicted*) grew at over *4 times* the population growth! How can you say the threat of prison is a deterrent when the actual figures show it to *not* be so? If it were a general deterrent, the worst case should have the prison population growth be no more than the general population growth. But, it's not, it's 400% greater! You can continue to claim your anecdotal "it is a deterrent" line and for you it's a specific deterrent (i.e., *you* won't commit crimes because you fear going to prison). But it is not a *general* deterrent; it does not prevent the majority from commiting crimes. > As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument would be that > because lots of people still smoke, fears of the health dangers do not > serve as a general deterrent against smoking. You would totally overlook > the millions of people who quit or never took it up because of the health > dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people who gave up or never > started committing crimes because of the fear of prison. How can I ignore evidence not presented? Can you show me figures that demonstrate that generally people are deterred from crime by the threat of prison? > No, I cannot > prove how many peopoe there are, That's what I've found as well. > but because *you* are making the claim > that fear of prison is not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show > that they do not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense. No, the onus is not on me to prove it. The onus is on the positive claimant, the one who claims that it *is* a deterrent, to prove their position. The default position (which I'm taking) is to reject the claim until such a time as the positive claimant supports their assertion. And that's precisely my thesis, that the threat of prison is not a deterrent. >> > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* > does >> > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain > silly. >> >> I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a >> deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find > people >> who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that >> *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the >> fear of prison is a general deterrent. > > If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and others you'll > need to provide some numbers and facts. Try looking at the Burea of Justic Statistics website for the growth rate of the prison population <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corr2tab.htm>. Then, go to the US Census Bureau's website and look at the population growth for the same period of time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" >> > crimes. >> >> >> >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth >> > that >> >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both >> >> violent >> > and >> >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*. >> > >> > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like >> > a college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially > investigating >> > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in. >> >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's >> quite a leap there, mate. > > I said nothing of the sort. You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal opinions? > If you want to engage in a serious > conversation you ought to read a message - and understand it - before > replying. I do. But, you should take your own advice since you're jumping to great conclusions based on nothing. > If your research is so great let us see it so we can judge it. "...so great..."? >> > This >> > is made quite clear by your statement "...myth that the fear of > punishment >> > works as a deterrent." You already believe that fear of punishment does >> > not act as a deterrent so why should anyone take your paper seriously? >> >> Why do you think that because I don't believe that the fear of prison is > an >> effective deterrent automatically means that my paper is either laughable >> or not to be taken seriously? It sounds like you've assumed *your* >> conclusions concerning the paper without having read it. > > Again, I never said anything of the sort. You said *precisely* that. > Why do you keep putting words in > my mouth? Is it that you have no response to what I actually said? Or > can't you understand what I said? Or is it that your statement was exactly what I described: that, based on what you see my opinion to be, my paper can't possibly be anything more than a biased polemic meant to support only my position. Is that not what you wrote above? >> > Also, I can offer numerous counterexanples to your thesis. Here are >> > just two: >> > >> > 1) I am sometimes in situations where I could drive 90 MPH with perfect >> > safety yet I do not for fear of getting caught. >> >> Solely for fear of getting caught, or is there also the personal safety >> factor and other elements involved? >> IOW, is your not breaking the law >> *solely* based on your fear of punishment or is it influenced by other, >> possibly more important concerns, such as physical safety? > > Still again you did not read or understand what I said. Did you miss the > "with perfect safety" part of my sentence? There's no such thing as "perfect safety". And, you didn't answer my question. Is the *only* reason you don't do it is the fear of getting caught and sent to jail? >> > 2) I have known several people who believed that using recreational > drugs >> > was perfectly moral but did not do so for fear of imprisonment. >> >> Then in those cases they have been generally deterred. But, you're >> talking on a very localized, anecdotal scale. *Generally* the fear of >> prison is > not >> a deterrent and the proof of that is the growing prison population and >> the lack of decrease in crime rates. How can you say something is a >> general deterrent when nothing is generally being deterred? > > Yet again your argument lacks logic. The growing prison population is > evidence (not proof) that the fear of prison is not *enough* of a > deterrent to prevent crime or reduce it significantly - I have no argument > with this. Then you have no argument with me. I've stated that the belief that it's a deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent" supports that. > But that's not the question and it's not what you have been > claiming. Toa rgume that te fear of prison is not a deterrent, you would > have to show that it is relatively rare for people to *not* committ crimes > because of this fear - and you have not done so. Your understanding of logic then is lacking. I don't have to prove a negative. One can *not* prove a negative. How do you prove the fear of prison is not a deterrent? You can't, not directly. Instead, you have to indirectly show the claim that it *is* a deterrent to be unsupported by fact. And here are (a few of) the facts: the prison population in 1990 was 4.1 million people. In 2002, the prison population was 6.7 million people. That's a growth of 54%. In that same time period, the US population grew from 248 million people to 281 million people. A growth of 13%. The prison population (that's just the people who were *convicted*) grew at over *4 times* the population growth! How can you say the threat of prison is a deterrent when the actual figures show it to *not* be so? If it were a general deterrent, the worst case should have the prison population growth be no more than the general population growth. But, it's not, it's 400% greater! You can continue to claim your anecdotal "it is a deterrent" line and for you it's a specific deterrent (i.e., *you* won't commit crimes because you fear going to prison). But it is not a *general* deterrent; it does not prevent the majority from commiting crimes. > As an analogy think of smoking and health. Your argument would be that > because lots of people still smoke, fears of the health dangers do not > serve as a general deterrent against smoking. You would totally overlook > the millions of people who quit or never took it up because of the health > dangers, just like you are ignoring all the people who gave up or never > started committing crimes because of the fear of prison. How can I ignore evidence not presented? Can you show me figures that demonstrate that generally people are deterred from crime by the threat of prison? > No, I cannot > prove how many peopoe there are, That's what I've found as well. > but because *you* are making the claim > that fear of prison is not a deterrent, it is incumbent on you to show > that they do not exist - otherwise your thesis is nonsense. No, the onus is not on me to prove it. The onus is on the positive claimant, the one who claims that it *is* a deterrent, to prove their position. The default position (which I'm taking) is to reject the claim until such a time as the positive claimant supports their assertion. And that's precisely my thesis, that the threat of prison is not a deterrent. >> > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* > does >> > not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain > silly. >> >> I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a >> deterrent. You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find > people >> who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that >> *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the >> fear of prison is a general deterrent. > > If that's just your opinion, fine, but to convince me and others you'll > need to provide some numbers and facts. Try looking at the Burea of Justic Statistics website for the growth rate of the prison population <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corr2tab.htm>. Then, go to the US Census Bureau's website and look at the population growth for the same period of time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* >> > does not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain >> > silly. >> >> I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a >> deterrent. > > I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those words and with > that emphasis. Never the less, that has been your frequently repeated > claim. I have looked through you comments on this thread and cut and > pasted the following comments on jail and deterrence. > > - The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent. > > - Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that > is is. > > - These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in > any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. > > - Jail was never meant to be a deterrent > > - It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking > they will not get *caught*. > > You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is not a deterrent. That's right. It's not a deterrent. > You never failed to acknowledge that it can be or that it often is. It can be a specific deterrent, but it is not a *general* deterrent. I acknowledge that *some* people decide not to commit crimes because of the fear of getting caught. The difference here is that those who argue that it is a deterrent think that *most* people operate under this mindset; i.e., that most people would commit crimes but they don't for fear of going to prison. > Instead, you constantly denied that it is a deterrent and never allowed > for the possibility that it is. In effect, you were indeed saying that it > is never a deterrent. Show me where I said "never". There are four kinds of deterrence: 1. general deterrence: the individual will not commit crimes so as not to experience the consequences 2. specific deterrence: the individual commits no *further* crimes are committed after having experienced the consequences of a past crime 3. absolute deterrence: the individual never commits a crime after seeing someone *else* experience the consequences 4. restrictive deterrence: the individual commits *fewer* crimes after seen someone *else* experience the consequences In this thread, those in favor have argued in favor of prison being a general deterrence. It is *not* such. People *in general* (i.e., the majority) are *not* deterred from commiting crimes for fear of prison. There are cases of specific and restrictive deterrence, but those are by their nature specific cases. The problem here seems to be one of communication. Those who are arguing that prison is a deterrent seem not to understand what makes something a deterrent and when someone is actually deterred by something and when someone simply doesn't do something. >> You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people >> who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that >> *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the >> fear of prison is a general deterrent. And, point out one person who was >> deterred does not make it generally a deterrent. > > Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is high school > level? Wow, you've the give of fallacy the same as Peter. Because my paper argues against your position, it's obviously nothing more than a high schooler's report or, as Peter try to claim, it's not objective or impartial. IOW, because it's not in agreement with you, the paper is obviously not to be taken seriously? Have I summarized your claim sufficiently? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> > You are certainly right to claim that fear of punishment *sometimes* >> > does not act as a deterrent, but to claim it *never* does is just plain >> > silly. >> >> I never said it *never* does. I said it general *does not* work as a >> deterrent. > > I have to admit that you never said it in exactly those words and with > that emphasis. Never the less, that has been your frequently repeated > claim. I have looked through you comments on this thread and cut and > pasted the following comments on jail and deterrence. > > - The problem you're having is thinking that punishment *is* a deterrent. > > - Prison is *not* a deterrent, even though you and others are arguing that > is is. > > - These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in > any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals. > > - Jail was never meant to be a deterrent > > - It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking > they will not get *caught*. > > You have constantly and repeatedly stressed that jail is not a deterrent. That's right. It's not a deterrent. > You never failed to acknowledge that it can be or that it often is. It can be a specific deterrent, but it is not a *general* deterrent. I acknowledge that *some* people decide not to commit crimes because of the fear of getting caught. The difference here is that those who argue that it is a deterrent think that *most* people operate under this mindset; i.e., that most people would commit crimes but they don't for fear of going to prison. > Instead, you constantly denied that it is a deterrent and never allowed > for the possibility that it is. In effect, you were indeed saying that it > is never a deterrent. Show me where I said "never". There are four kinds of deterrence: 1. general deterrence: the individual will not commit crimes so as not to experience the consequences 2. specific deterrence: the individual commits no *further* crimes are committed after having experienced the consequences of a past crime 3. absolute deterrence: the individual never commits a crime after seeing someone *else* experience the consequences 4. restrictive deterrence: the individual commits *fewer* crimes after seen someone *else* experience the consequences In this thread, those in favor have argued in favor of prison being a general deterrence. It is *not* such. People *in general* (i.e., the majority) are *not* deterred from commiting crimes for fear of prison. There are cases of specific and restrictive deterrence, but those are by their nature specific cases. The problem here seems to be one of communication. Those who are arguing that prison is a deterrent seem not to understand what makes something a deterrent and when someone is actually deterred by something and when someone simply doesn't do something. >> You're talking on a small scale where yes, you *can* find people >> who were deterred. But, what is the percentage of the population that >> *is* deterred? It's nowhere near large enough for one to claim that the >> fear of prison is a general deterrent. And, point out one person who was >> deterred does not make it generally a deterrent. > > Let me guess..... this "paper" that you are working on is high school > level? Wow, you've the give of fallacy the same as Peter. Because my paper argues against your position, it's obviously nothing more than a high schooler's report or, as Peter try to claim, it's not objective or impartial. IOW, because it's not in agreement with you, the paper is obviously not to be taken seriously? Have I summarized your claim sufficiently? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Peter Aitken wrote: > > >> >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" > >> > crimes. > >> >> > >> >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth > >> > that > >> >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both > >> >> violent > >> > and > >> >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*. > >> > > >> > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like > >> > a college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially > > investigating > >> > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in. > >> > >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research > >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's > >> quite a leap there, mate. > > > > I said nothing of the sort. > > You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you > *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an > impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal > opinions? > Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more try. You said that your paper "explored the myth that prison is a deterrent" (or words to that effect). Already it's a myth - see my point? You did not say that your paper "explored the question of whether prison is a deterrent or is not a deterrent." This suggests to me that from the beginning your paper was a polemic, designed to advance a specific opinion. But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not presented any evidence that prison is not a deterrent. Statistics that the prison population is rising are irrelevant. Also, your claims about not proving a negative are way off base. It is a negative only because of how it is phrased. One could phrase your position as "the rate of criminal activity remains unchanged by the threat of prison" with the counter-position being "the rate of criminal activity does not remain unchanged by the threat of prison." Now your theory is the positive and you have to prove it. And, as this and previous messages from you have shown, you cannot or will not understand what I say. You repeatedly misinterpret my statements and drag the discussion off into tangents. You obscure the issue by turning the discussion into my perceived disrespect for your paper (which we *still* have not seen). Finally, your stateemt: >I've stated that the belief that it's a >deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent" >supports that. is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a deterrent" and "not enough of a deterrent" are the same thing? I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are imprisoned for trivial crimes - primarily drug possession IMO. But I believe this because drug possession does not harm society at large, *not* because I think that it does not deter people. On the other hand, what Martha did *does* harm society. All too many people do this sort of thing as it is. I'd hate to think what it would be like if there was no threat of prison. Your opinion is that things would not change at all - but yuo need to support that opinion with more than tenuous correlations and speculation. Cheers, Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Peter Aitken wrote: > > >> >> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with "white collar" > >> > crimes. > >> >> > >> >> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper deals with the myth > >> > that > >> >> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It deals with both > >> >> violent > >> > and > >> >> non-violent crimes in that it talks about *criminals*. > >> > > >> > I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your "paper" sounds like > >> > a college freshman level polemic that, rather than impartially > > investigating > >> > an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you already believe in. > >> > >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research > >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's > >> quite a leap there, mate. > > > > I said nothing of the sort. > > You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you > *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an > impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal > opinions? > Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more try. You said that your paper "explored the myth that prison is a deterrent" (or words to that effect). Already it's a myth - see my point? You did not say that your paper "explored the question of whether prison is a deterrent or is not a deterrent." This suggests to me that from the beginning your paper was a polemic, designed to advance a specific opinion. But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not presented any evidence that prison is not a deterrent. Statistics that the prison population is rising are irrelevant. Also, your claims about not proving a negative are way off base. It is a negative only because of how it is phrased. One could phrase your position as "the rate of criminal activity remains unchanged by the threat of prison" with the counter-position being "the rate of criminal activity does not remain unchanged by the threat of prison." Now your theory is the positive and you have to prove it. And, as this and previous messages from you have shown, you cannot or will not understand what I say. You repeatedly misinterpret my statements and drag the discussion off into tangents. You obscure the issue by turning the discussion into my perceived disrespect for your paper (which we *still* have not seen). Finally, your stateemt: >I've stated that the belief that it's a >deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent" >supports that. is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a deterrent" and "not enough of a deterrent" are the same thing? I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are imprisoned for trivial crimes - primarily drug possession IMO. But I believe this because drug possession does not harm society at large, *not* because I think that it does not deter people. On the other hand, what Martha did *does* harm society. All too many people do this sort of thing as it is. I'd hate to think what it would be like if there was no threat of prison. Your opinion is that things would not change at all - but yuo need to support that opinion with more than tenuous correlations and speculation. Cheers, Peter |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research >> >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's >> >> quite a leap there, mate. >> > >> > I said nothing of the sort. >> >> You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you >> *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an >> impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal >> opinions? > > Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more try. You said > that your paper "explored the myth that prison is a deterrent" (or words > to that effect). Already it's a myth - see my point? Yeah. So? The thesis has been discussed by me before, and it is supported. Do you see that you're committing the genetic fallacy? > You did not say that > your paper "explored the question of whether prison is a deterrent or is > not a deterrent." This suggests to me that from the beginning your paper > was a polemic, designed to advance a specific opinion. So, you jumped to a conclusion, in other words? Yeah, the paper *does* explore whether the claim that prison is a deterrent. It concludes that it's *not* and that conclusion is supported by evidence. > But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not presented any evidence > that prison is not a deterrent. You're right, you can't. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. But you *can* show evidence that shows the positive claim that it *is* a deterrent to be incorrect. > Statistics that the prison population is > rising are irrelevant. No, it's quite on target. The prison population grows disproportionately to the general population growth. I never said that that was *conclusive*. I actually said that that's only *part* of the information used to show the positive claim to be wrong. > Also, your claims about not proving a negative are > way off base. It is a negative only because of how it is phrased. Oh, spare me your ignorance, okay? It is not a positive or a negative claim based on phrasing. It (the assertion "prison is a deterrent") is a positive claim because it asserts the *existence* of some thing, in this case that the prison system acts as a deterrent to criminals. The onus for supporting such a claim falls squarely on the shoulders of the person making the positive claim, with the default position (the one my paper takes) being to reject the claim until such a time as it is proven. Don't believe me? Go do a google on positive claims and the burden of proof. > One > could phrase your position as "the rate of criminal activity remains > unchanged by the threat of prison" with the counter-position being "the > rate of criminal activity does not remain unchanged by the threat of > prison." Now your theory is the positive and you have to prove it. You're demonstrated a marked lack of ignorance concerning logic. > And, as this and previous messages from you have shown, you cannot or will > not understand what I say. You repeatedly misinterpret my statements and > drag the discussion off into tangents. You obscure the issue by turning > the discussion into my perceived disrespect for your paper (which we > *still* have not seen). Yeah. Putting "paper" into quotes and suggesting that it's not impartial is really showing respect, eh? Tell me, what if it *were* a freshman paper? Do you think that automatically makes it not convincing; i.e., do you commit the genetic fallacy there as well? > Finally, your stateemt: > >>I've stated that the belief that it's a >>deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent" >>supports that. > > is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a deterrent" and "not > enough of a deterrent" are the same thing? Effectively, yes. They *are* the same thing. If something does not deter, it does not deter. Why do you find it mind-boggling? > I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are imprisoned for > trivial crimes - primarily drug possession IMO. But I believe this because > drug possession does not harm society at large, *not* because I think that > it does not deter people. I think people should not be imprisoned for non-violent crimes or who have not been shown to be a physical threat to others. Drug possession in and of itself is not a violent act and jailing non-violent offenders is barbarism. > On the other hand, what Martha did *does* harm > society. How has she harmed society? She *may* have harmed other investors, but that is hardly "society". > All too many people do this sort of thing as it is. I'd hate to > think what it would be like if there was no threat of prison. Arguments from incredulity aside, the threat of being shot in the head for commiting the crime would have a bit more of an effect, so why not take that route? I'm sure even *more* people would be deterred. > Your opinion > is that things would not change at all No. My opinion (based on the facts I've found) is that things *HAVE NOT* changed. Perhaps that's your problem, you don't understand what I *AM* saying. > - but yuo need to support that > opinion with more than tenuous correlations and speculation. You make alot of assumptions about what I've written, speaking of speculation... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research >> >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's >> >> quite a leap there, mate. >> > >> > I said nothing of the sort. >> >> You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you >> *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an >> impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal >> opinions? > > Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more try. You said > that your paper "explored the myth that prison is a deterrent" (or words > to that effect). Already it's a myth - see my point? Yeah. So? The thesis has been discussed by me before, and it is supported. Do you see that you're committing the genetic fallacy? > You did not say that > your paper "explored the question of whether prison is a deterrent or is > not a deterrent." This suggests to me that from the beginning your paper > was a polemic, designed to advance a specific opinion. So, you jumped to a conclusion, in other words? Yeah, the paper *does* explore whether the claim that prison is a deterrent. It concludes that it's *not* and that conclusion is supported by evidence. > But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not presented any evidence > that prison is not a deterrent. You're right, you can't. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. But you *can* show evidence that shows the positive claim that it *is* a deterrent to be incorrect. > Statistics that the prison population is > rising are irrelevant. No, it's quite on target. The prison population grows disproportionately to the general population growth. I never said that that was *conclusive*. I actually said that that's only *part* of the information used to show the positive claim to be wrong. > Also, your claims about not proving a negative are > way off base. It is a negative only because of how it is phrased. Oh, spare me your ignorance, okay? It is not a positive or a negative claim based on phrasing. It (the assertion "prison is a deterrent") is a positive claim because it asserts the *existence* of some thing, in this case that the prison system acts as a deterrent to criminals. The onus for supporting such a claim falls squarely on the shoulders of the person making the positive claim, with the default position (the one my paper takes) being to reject the claim until such a time as it is proven. Don't believe me? Go do a google on positive claims and the burden of proof. > One > could phrase your position as "the rate of criminal activity remains > unchanged by the threat of prison" with the counter-position being "the > rate of criminal activity does not remain unchanged by the threat of > prison." Now your theory is the positive and you have to prove it. You're demonstrated a marked lack of ignorance concerning logic. > And, as this and previous messages from you have shown, you cannot or will > not understand what I say. You repeatedly misinterpret my statements and > drag the discussion off into tangents. You obscure the issue by turning > the discussion into my perceived disrespect for your paper (which we > *still* have not seen). Yeah. Putting "paper" into quotes and suggesting that it's not impartial is really showing respect, eh? Tell me, what if it *were* a freshman paper? Do you think that automatically makes it not convincing; i.e., do you commit the genetic fallacy there as well? > Finally, your stateemt: > >>I've stated that the belief that it's a >>deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent" >>supports that. > > is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a deterrent" and "not > enough of a deterrent" are the same thing? Effectively, yes. They *are* the same thing. If something does not deter, it does not deter. Why do you find it mind-boggling? > I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are imprisoned for > trivial crimes - primarily drug possession IMO. But I believe this because > drug possession does not harm society at large, *not* because I think that > it does not deter people. I think people should not be imprisoned for non-violent crimes or who have not been shown to be a physical threat to others. Drug possession in and of itself is not a violent act and jailing non-violent offenders is barbarism. > On the other hand, what Martha did *does* harm > society. How has she harmed society? She *may* have harmed other investors, but that is hardly "society". > All too many people do this sort of thing as it is. I'd hate to > think what it would be like if there was no threat of prison. Arguments from incredulity aside, the threat of being shot in the head for commiting the crime would have a bit more of an effect, so why not take that route? I'm sure even *more* people would be deterred. > Your opinion > is that things would not change at all No. My opinion (based on the facts I've found) is that things *HAVE NOT* changed. Perhaps that's your problem, you don't understand what I *AM* saying. > - but yuo need to support that > opinion with more than tenuous correlations and speculation. You make alot of assumptions about what I've written, speaking of speculation... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
zxcvbob > wrote
> No one was defrauded by MS lying about that infamous limit order. I > suspect she did illegal insider trading, but notice that she was never > charged with that. Until she is charged and convicted of that crime, > she is presumed innocent and all the public outrage against her is > misplaced. Wrong. The SEC has sued Stewart for insider trading. That case is stayed pending the criminal prosecution. > > The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an insider > trading indictment because that's difficult to prove. But they knew a > manipulative controlling b! like Martha would perjure herself if they > set a trap by lying to her about an insider trading investigation. > It's called "entrapment." Are you delusional? What lie was told to her? There was an insider trading investigation... and it resulted in the SEC suing her. Nobody forced her to lie. Entrapment requires the government to concoct a crime and lure an unwilling person into participating. Here, Stewart made the trade of her volition, and decided to lie to the SEC and FBI about it. Twelve jurors agreed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
zxcvbob > wrote
> No one was defrauded by MS lying about that infamous limit order. I > suspect she did illegal insider trading, but notice that she was never > charged with that. Until she is charged and convicted of that crime, > she is presumed innocent and all the public outrage against her is > misplaced. Wrong. The SEC has sued Stewart for insider trading. That case is stayed pending the criminal prosecution. > > The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an insider > trading indictment because that's difficult to prove. But they knew a > manipulative controlling b! like Martha would perjure herself if they > set a trap by lying to her about an insider trading investigation. > It's called "entrapment." Are you delusional? What lie was told to her? There was an insider trading investigation... and it resulted in the SEC suing her. Nobody forced her to lie. Entrapment requires the government to concoct a crime and lure an unwilling person into participating. Here, Stewart made the trade of her volition, and decided to lie to the SEC and FBI about it. Twelve jurors agreed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:38:22 -0600, zxcvbob >
arranged random neurons, so they looked like this: <snip> > >The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an insider >trading indictment because that's difficult to prove. But they knew a >manipulative controlling b! like Martha would perjure herself if they >set a trap by lying to her about an insider trading investigation. > >It's called "entrapment." > Here we go again. The legal definition of "entrapment" (see http://dictionary.law.com/): entrapment n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called "stings" in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes' services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen. The factual question is: Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if not pressed by the narc? No one *induced* or *encouraged* MS to commit a crime. Howinhell could the SEC or the FBI "know" MS would perjure herself? She was asked by federal investigators if she had information that a) IMClone's stock was going to tank, and b) she sold her stock ahead of the public dissemination of the information. She lied and she was charged with obstructing justice and lying to investigators. No one encouraged her to lie, AFAICS. She lied to cover her butt And it was a really stupid lie. We're talking $50K out of her multi-zillion dollar empire! If she'd just have said, "Oh, what was I thinking? OMG! You're right! That was illegal!" She'd surely have gotten off with a fine. Period. But she seemed to think that Martha Stewart was bullet proof. Not. Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very good dinner." Anonymous. To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:38:22 -0600, zxcvbob >
arranged random neurons, so they looked like this: <snip> > >The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an insider >trading indictment because that's difficult to prove. But they knew a >manipulative controlling b! like Martha would perjure herself if they >set a trap by lying to her about an insider trading investigation. > >It's called "entrapment." > Here we go again. The legal definition of "entrapment" (see http://dictionary.law.com/): entrapment n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called "stings" in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes' services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen. The factual question is: Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if not pressed by the narc? No one *induced* or *encouraged* MS to commit a crime. Howinhell could the SEC or the FBI "know" MS would perjure herself? She was asked by federal investigators if she had information that a) IMClone's stock was going to tank, and b) she sold her stock ahead of the public dissemination of the information. She lied and she was charged with obstructing justice and lying to investigators. No one encouraged her to lie, AFAICS. She lied to cover her butt And it was a really stupid lie. We're talking $50K out of her multi-zillion dollar empire! If she'd just have said, "Oh, what was I thinking? OMG! You're right! That was illegal!" She'd surely have gotten off with a fine. Period. But she seemed to think that Martha Stewart was bullet proof. Not. Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very good dinner." Anonymous. To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
I don't agree with fines, unless they go to the victims. If it's a fine
that goes to the court, screw them. The latter seems a crime in itself. "Alun" > wrote in message ... > (Steve Dufour) wrote in > om: > > > "larry" > wrote in message > > >. .. > >> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves > >> to go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put > >> her back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those > >> with plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. > >> but some time in stripes scares nearly everybody. > >> > >> > >> Laurence > > > > From today's Washington Times > > > > Saving the streets from Martha Stewart > > > > > > By Wesley Pruden > > > > > > We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our beds (with > > or without flowered sheets). The feds are finally getting Martha > > Stewart off the streets. > > Her expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall behind > > the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the prosecution. > > Martha, who insists on things being done right, will help him choose > > the appropriate presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a > > deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant > > and fetching way. > > Some of the reporters and pundits who are offended most by > > Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and > > flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding subjects > > haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye > > Bakker into prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel. > > The first juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing > > Miss Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy." You > > could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well. > > "Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the > > markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose > > money in 401(k) plans," said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer > > programmer who talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a > > little more confident feeling that can invest in the market and > > everything will be on the up and up." > > Well, maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on > > prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal trial, > > particularly since the feds' bill of particulars was thin soup to > > begin with and made more so when the judge threw out the charge of > > insider trading, the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot. > > Juror Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly > > what the feds were counting on to save them from the humiliation of a > > collapsing railroad job. > > Miss Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance, > > haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner are no more > > attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious living than in, for > > example, a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish > > girl from New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by hanging > > out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side > > who summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to her mama, > > who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a > > girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can > > get into between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking heads, a > > woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the > > prototypical "rich bitch," showing up in court in her furs, jewels and > > designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers should have taken her > > back to New Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant > > frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her > > celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby, to stay > > away from the courthouse if they really wanted to help. > > "If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of > > Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an > > insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?" > > In a word, yes. That's the way lawyers play the game. This time, > > the defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may > > be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers. > > But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of bitchery, > > witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of conspiracy, > > obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents, > > who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even > > suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she > > was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that > > gets to mark the cards. > > We've always taken a certain pride in the proposition that in > > America, class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but don't > > begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of how > > to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent > > decades of class warfare, abetted by the rich, the pampered and the > > celebrated who play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced > > religion as the national religion, and with greed comes envy. > > Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than crimes, and > > learning a little humility is never a bad thing. But when the > > government commits vendetta, the sin becomes a crime. The government > > ought to be ashamed of its bullying self. > > > > > > Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times. > > I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't think she should > go to jail. What offends me about the decision is that I feel that with the > underlying charge of insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the > other charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought she had > committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail for that. It's not a > question of jurisprudence, just one of exercising reasonable discretion. > However, if her (new) lawyers can make a case on appeal that the > convictions can't stand because they are based only on lying about > something she didn't do, I wish them well. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
I don't agree with fines, unless they go to the victims. If it's a fine
that goes to the court, screw them. The latter seems a crime in itself. "Alun" > wrote in message ... > (Steve Dufour) wrote in > om: > > > "larry" > wrote in message > > >. .. > >> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves > >> to go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put > >> her back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those > >> with plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. > >> but some time in stripes scares nearly everybody. > >> > >> > >> Laurence > > > > From today's Washington Times > > > > Saving the streets from Martha Stewart > > > > > > By Wesley Pruden > > > > > > We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our beds (with > > or without flowered sheets). The feds are finally getting Martha > > Stewart off the streets. > > Her expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall behind > > the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the prosecution. > > Martha, who insists on things being done right, will help him choose > > the appropriate presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a > > deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant > > and fetching way. > > Some of the reporters and pundits who are offended most by > > Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and > > flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding subjects > > haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye > > Bakker into prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel. > > The first juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing > > Miss Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy." You > > could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well. > > "Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the > > markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose > > money in 401(k) plans," said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer > > programmer who talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a > > little more confident feeling that can invest in the market and > > everything will be on the up and up." > > Well, maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on > > prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal trial, > > particularly since the feds' bill of particulars was thin soup to > > begin with and made more so when the judge threw out the charge of > > insider trading, the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot. > > Juror Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly > > what the feds were counting on to save them from the humiliation of a > > collapsing railroad job. > > Miss Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance, > > haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner are no more > > attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious living than in, for > > example, a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish > > girl from New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by hanging > > out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side > > who summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to her mama, > > who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a > > girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can > > get into between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking heads, a > > woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the > > prototypical "rich bitch," showing up in court in her furs, jewels and > > designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers should have taken her > > back to New Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant > > frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her > > celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby, to stay > > away from the courthouse if they really wanted to help. > > "If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of > > Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an > > insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?" > > In a word, yes. That's the way lawyers play the game. This time, > > the defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may > > be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers. > > But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of bitchery, > > witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of conspiracy, > > obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents, > > who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even > > suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she > > was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that > > gets to mark the cards. > > We've always taken a certain pride in the proposition that in > > America, class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but don't > > begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of how > > to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent > > decades of class warfare, abetted by the rich, the pampered and the > > celebrated who play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced > > religion as the national religion, and with greed comes envy. > > Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than crimes, and > > learning a little humility is never a bad thing. But when the > > government commits vendetta, the sin becomes a crime. The government > > ought to be ashamed of its bullying self. > > > > > > Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times. > > I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't think she should > go to jail. What offends me about the decision is that I feel that with the > underlying charge of insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the > other charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought she had > committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail for that. It's not a > question of jurisprudence, just one of exercising reasonable discretion. > However, if her (new) lawyers can make a case on appeal that the > convictions can't stand because they are based only on lying about > something she didn't do, I wish them well. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Zeitsev" > wrote in message ... > I don't agree with fines, unless they go to the victims. If it's a fine > that goes to the court, screw them. > The latter seems a crime in itself. You are the one person who has made the most sense in this debate,, as a fine in her case would be inappropriate and a LONG jail sentence the only "punishment" for her convictions. Cheers Eric |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Zeitsev" > wrote in message ... > I don't agree with fines, unless they go to the victims. If it's a fine > that goes to the court, screw them. > The latter seems a crime in itself. You are the one person who has made the most sense in this debate,, as a fine in her case would be inappropriate and a LONG jail sentence the only "punishment" for her convictions. Cheers Eric |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:48:43 -0600, Steve Wertz
> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:43:15 -0600, Pan Ohco > >wrote: > >>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:26:32 -0600, Steve Wertz > wrote: >> >> >>>>Every Federal prisoner, that I have seen, wore the orange jump suit. >>>>Of course there may be some that wear normal cloths, possibly at the >>>>"club fed" prisons. >>> >>>They only wear orange jump suits when they travel someplace (like >>>court or being transferred to another prison). Have you ever >>>actually been *in* a Federal prison, or just seen it on TV and the >>>movies? >>> >> >>Yes Steve I have been. That is why I stated those "that I have seen". >>Pan Ohco > >They don't wear orange jumpsuits *inside* the prison (unless >they're getting ready to go someplace). > >-sw O.K. I guess I didn't see what I thought I saw. I thought that the federal prisoners that I have interviewed in federal prison were wearing orange jump suits. But I must be wrong again. YMMV. Pan Ohco |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| you deserve a break... (OT) | General Cooking | |||
| Please please please please respond with reasonable answers -- those who make/sell DSLNNDSRBRCNRBCs as well as those who benefit from such production and sale deserve severe punishment. Flames and feces to torture them. Flames and feces to tortur | Baking | |||
| Please please please please respond with reasonable answers -- those who make/sell DSLNNDSRBRCNRBCs as well as those who benefit from such production and sale deserve severe punishment. Flames and feces to torture them. Flames and feces to tortur | General Cooking | |||
| Please please please please respond with reasonable answers -- those who make/sell DSLNNDSRBRCNRBCs as well as those who benefit from such production and sale deserve severe punishment. Flames and feces to torture them. Flames and feces to tortur | Preserving | |||
| Martha's out... | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
