Live data from Hacker News

A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

aclu.org

511–513 of 513 posts

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#511
post #7

It's a crying shame. Normally that's an empty phrase, but it describes this. I can't imagine reading this and not feeling tears well up. No sense of what I would call humanity. From what perspective does this make the world a better place? What am I missing about being human that this fits into that I don't understand?

The ACLU page is rather manipulative in that they construe the facts very favorably to the convicted. E.g. "After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently killing someone during a bar fight." Oh yes, he just accidentally killed someone in a bar fight. Happens all the time really, right up there with leaving your credit card with the hostess after getting a little too tipsy. It would be le…

You're construing the facts against the convicted. You didn't even finish the sentence you quoted. After he went to jail, that guy turned his life around and became a productive valuable member of society. They say he killed someone accidentally because there's an important distinction between accidental and intentional homicide, not because it's an easy mistake to make. He's exactly the kind of edge case that shows the stupidity of three strikes laws. Instead of being an irredeemable criminal, he was a criminal who actually showed clear signs of rehabilitation. Really not someone who should be shoved in jail forever at the taxpayer's expense.

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#512
post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I get that the ACLU's actions regarding the 2nd Amendment are defensible. That wasn't the topic. The topic was the claim that the ACLU is a "strong supporter" of the second amendment. Do you know a definition of "strong supporter" that is appropriate for the ACLU's actions regarding the Second Amendment? No, I don't want to hear about how great the ACLU is. No, I don't want to hear about the ACLU really does su…

I think they're a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as per the way they interpret it; they have filed a number of briefs in support of cases that fit their definition. Let's stop with the farce: your complaint is that you don't like their interpretation, and so you choose to change the topic and blur the issue on a completely different thread to grind that ax of yours.

No, my complaint is that there's a difference between "supporter" and "strong supporter", and that if the latter is to have any meaning at all, the ACLU doesn't meet it.

How do you differentiate a "supporter" from a "strong supporter"? If I firmly believed that the First Amendment only protects pro-government speech, and filed the occasional legal brief in defense of those prosecuted under this interpretation, would that make me a "strong supporter" of the First Amendment? Would you talk about how crazy wicked cool it is that a nutty right-winger like me paradoxically has a thing for protecting the first amendment?

Or, to avoid the issue of weak interpretations of amendments, how about if I had the "normal" 1st amendment views, and had a "pro-Bill of Rights" group that spent only a token amount of effort protecting infringements on speech (or the other 1A stuff), and never to represent any such client? Still a "strong" supporter? Or just a "supporter"?

Re: A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

#513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird you chose that strawman because actually people do need a permit to operate large fires in public and I am pretty sure a convicted arsonist would be denied this privilege.

An analogy is not a straw man. Moreover, I can identify at least two problems with your rebuttal. First, the existence of a bad policy somewhere does not excuse the existence of similar bad policies everywhere. You can't justify the penalties under the CFAA by comparing to the penalties for crack cocaine possession, because they are both excessive. Second, you'll notice that your discovery (if such a prohibition for…

In most states you are only required to have a license to drive on public roads. You are free to drive recklessly on your own private property.
Post reply on HN