Kaine vs. Kilgore

**one1one** · July 29th, 2005, 04:24 PM

but seriously...that wasnt what he was saying. He was talking about an eye for an eye, if you know what i mean

**imported_JustaFan** · July 29th, 2005, 04:57 PM

I bet your glad your momma didnt think you were justa nonliving organism gcdevil22. You might not have had the choice of getting on here and jawing about when life starts.

**imported_biggamesjames** · July 29th, 2005, 05:04 PM

I'm concerned with all crimes same as we all should be. I'm concerned with violent crimes, non-violent crimes, robbery, drug crimes...you name it. I am particularly concerned with lighter sentencing for violent crimes and crimes that are sexual in nature especially when involving a child. Lets assume your statistics on violent crimes are true(i will discuss their validity later)...The trend lately seems to be more focused on rehabilation than on harsh punishment which I still see as a big problem...not to say that rehab isn't good but the best form of rehab is harsh punishment. The prisons are much nicer now than they were in prior generations and the inmates are allowed many more privileges than before. I will concede that it is possible that their was a short term reduction in violent crime rates due to the 85% law but still these inmates that are locked up for such crimes are not being punished accordingly and no where near a parallel with the heinous acts they were convicted of.

Now about your statistics...say, where do you think those statistics were derived from? Each state gave reports right? Where do you think the states received their data? From the local law enforcement agencies ie cities and counties right? Ok let me break it down for you "statistically" since you are such a big fan of that....in 1998 appoximately 1 in every 155 american males were incarcerated. In 2005 approximately 1 in every 138 males were incarcerated. Thats quiet a drastic increase in 7 years huh? What are the chances that the overall crime rate fell during that span while the overall inmate population jumped so dramatically? Not very good huh? You may ask "how could this be...my charts show a very different trend." There are several reasons for this some which you may not be privy to since I am assuming you are a civilian. One reason is directly related to the increased number of police officers currently employed in the U.S. The other is that your statistics are not up to date and may not be completely accurate anyway. Why would they not be completely accurate you say? Ok lets go back to the base of where the data is derived. Our local law enforcement agencies right? Now you say "why would they have any reason to give innaccurate data?" Well its very simple...local sheriff's are elected officials and they don't want their constituency knowing that the crime rate and PARTICULARLY the "violent crime" rate went up on their watch. That is political suicide. They have complete control over providing this data and quiet simply feel its very bad publicity to report rises especially in certain areas. Do all localities practice this? Well ofcourse not, but do a good percentage or atleast 50% practice this? From personal experience in the field I would say: absolutely. Graynal you seem like a nice person and I'm sure you mean well but don't let yourself get caught up in those things alone, it leads to tunnel vision and singular frame of mind and thought process. Its like having a Quarterback who through for 100 TD passes and automatically assuming he was better than the QB who threw for 50 TD's because you have the statistics and the proof to say so...however keep in mind there are alot of other factors that could have came into play like how good of a runner was the other QB or how good was his line?...How bout his receivers? Did they play against the same level of competition? How bout the coach... did he allow one QB to pass on the goal line everytime? Sometimes we need to think outside of the box...sometimes we need to use deductive reasoning...sometimes we need to consider that other scenarios are possible and that we may not know everything there is to know on a particular topic.

Moral: Statistics and pretty graphs are nice but visual evidence and related personal experience are even better.

**imported_Counts** · July 29th, 2005, 05:05 PM

Not to get into this argument to much but if a fetuis is "not living" then what exactly is it doing? I fall somewhere in the middle of all this but anyone who thinks the fetuis is not "really alive" is just tring to make themselfs feel better about the whole thing

**imported_biggamesjames** · July 29th, 2005, 05:57 PM

"and die hard conservatives will be willing to play God when it comes to a living breathing human, but tell others to not play God when it involves something that in its earl stages is neither living, nor breathing"

Just another example of how a liberal can compare an innocent unborn child to a convicted murderer, rapist or child molester and somehow come to the conclusion that the child who has never had a chance in this world is less deserving of life than the piece of trash who did have the chance and more than likely didn't give a puck about the life he took, the woman he raped, or the child he molested....or you or I for that matter....but once caught, all of a sudden he wants all of us to care about his life and have pity on him. It is beyond my comprehension and embarrassing as a fellow human and American that so many of you out there do.

**imported_JustaFan** · July 29th, 2005, 06:42 PM

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

**pvfan** · July 30th, 2005, 01:49 AM

My take on this big argument, and as I predicted earlier this would end up in an argument. I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to argue abortion with people in this area. They will defend it to the day that they die that it is wrong and in-moral. However, they all think the dealth penalty is the greatest thing in the world and that we should keep it. Is it not one in the same? I personally support abortion in some situations. My question to those of you who dont support it at all is what do you do with these kids? Momma is on drugs, Daddy is gone, and the kid has birth defects and learning disabilites. Now, for the ones that come out normal, most of them grow up in a pretty bad houselhold. When these kids turn into their parents and are unemployed and on welfare you all complain about the welfare system. You cant have it both ways, you've got to draw the line somewhere. All I'm saying is if you dont support abortion then dont complain about your taxes or the welfare system. They go hand in hand. As for the death penalty I support it as well one of the few democrats that do but I think that its needed.

**Graynal** · July 30th, 2005, 01:25 PM

Hi; thanks for your reply.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'm concerned with all crimes same as we all should be. I'm concerned with violent crimes, non-violent crimes, robbery, drug crimes...you name it. I am particularly concerned with lighter sentencing for violent crimes and crimes that are sexual in nature especially when involving a child. Lets assume your statistics on violent crimes are true(i will discuss their validity later)...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that the Department of Justice is a valid source for statistical data on crime?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The trend lately seems to be more focused on rehabilation than on harsh punishment which I still see as a big problem...not to say that rehab isn't good but the best form of rehab is harsh punishment. The prisons are much nicer now than they were in prior generations and the inmates are allowed many more privileges than before. I will concede that it is possible that their was a short term reduction in violent crime rates due to the 85% law but still these inmates that are locked up for such crimes are not being punished accordingly and no where near a parallel with the heinous acts they were convicted of.

Now about your statistics...say, where do you think those statistics were derived from? Each state gave reports right? Where do you think the states received their data? From the local law enforcement agencies ie cities and counties right? Ok let me break it down for you "statistically" since you are such a big fan of that....in 1998 appoximately 1 in every 155 american males were incarcerated. In 2005 approximately 1 in every 138 males were incarcerated. Thats quiet a drastic increase in 7 years huh? What are the chances that the overall crime rate fell during that span while the overall inmate population jumped so dramatically? Not very good huh? You may ask "how could this be...my charts show a very different trend." There are several reasons for this some which you may not be privy to since I am assuming you are a civilian. One reason is directly related to the increased number of police officers currently employed in the U.S. The other is that your statistics are not up to date and may not be completely accurate anyway. Why would they not be completely accurate you say? Ok lets go back to the base of where the data is derived. Our local law enforcement agencies right? Now you say "why would they have any reason to give innaccurate data?" Well its very simple...local sheriff's are elected officials and they don't want their constituency knowing that the crime rate and PARTICULARLY the "violent crime" rate went up on their watch. That is political suicide. They have complete control over providing this data and quiet simply feel its very bad publicity to report rises especially in certain areas. Do all localities practice this? Well ofcourse not, but do a good percentage or atleast 50% practice this? From personal experience in the field I would say: absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making a lot of vast claims here, but I'm not sure if it's rational for me to believe them because your conclusions are based on premises which are unattributed. Could you please share the sources of your data so that I might be able to evaluate the quality of the sources, and thus the validity of your premises?

Also, I appreciate your own personal experiences, but since we don't know who you are and since we can't validate your credentials, it's difficult to evaluate the validity of your personal experiences as premises.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Graynal you seem like a nice person and I'm sure you mean well but don't let yourself get caught up in those things alone, it leads to tunnel vision and singular frame of mind and thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm confused here again. Could you please clarify this point?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Its like having a Quarterback who through for 100 TD passes and automatically assuming he was better than the QB who threw for 50 TD's because you have the statistics and the proof to say so...however keep in mind there are alot of other factors that could have came into play like how good of a runner was the other QB or how good was his line?...How bout his receivers? Did they play against the same level of competition? How bout the coach... did he allow one QB to pass on the goal line everytime? Sometimes we need to think outside of the box...sometimes we need to use deductive reasoning...sometimes we need to consider that other scenarios are possible and that we may not know everything there is to know on a particular topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your advice. I certainly don't know everything there is to know about criminology; I have a little background in the subject, but it only amounts to about 12 or so credit-hours of undergraduate study at this point. I'm always open to any new information or ideas you might like to share.

**one1one** · July 30th, 2005, 05:03 PM

you sure do get confused an awful lot

**imported_ut1** · July 31st, 2005, 01:58 AM

The big difference in aborting a fetus and executing a criminal? The unborn has no say in his/her fate, while a felon chooses the possibility of a death penalty by his/her actions... a choice he/she made (hence having a "say" in what happens to him/her).
The Bible strictly forbids harm to an unborn, an innocent which cannot protect him(her)self. On the other hand, the Bible lists many crimes that God deems punishable by death. His words, not mine. So yes, I am anti-abortion, while at the same time pro-death penalty. For anyone to argue that they are remotely similar is ludicrous, to say the least. The only thing they have in common is that someone, yes SOMEONE, dies.

As far as Kaine & Kilgore, I'll vote for Kilgore...not because he's a Republican, but because he's one of us!! How often do we have a chance to put someone from our area in the Governor's chair???? Not very often, so it sure couldn't hurt us to have one of our guys in there, even if he is an old Blue Devil! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]