tvashtarkatena

These types of offenders, while serving their sentences, are treated, evaluated, and observed for years. During this time and intense scrutiny, there is ample opportunity to decide if the offenders are likely to be a threat, should they be released. Under such a system, 'sentences', and therefore the rule of law, is meaningless. This system is analogous to conferring enemy combatant status (which also promised indefinite detention). Such a system seriously erodes the potential for a fair trial, and therefore attacks the due process clause. Here's why: After 911, several suspected terrorists were arrested in the U.S. and threatened with enemy combatant status (and the indefinite detention that would come with it). They wound up pleading guilty and getting fixed prison sentences rather that opting to go to trial and risk, somewhere along the way, that their status would be designated 'enemy combatant'. They claimed, initially, that they were not guilty, but their lawyers advised them to cop a plea as the lesser of two evils. Was justice served here? No. If the state feels some crimes are heinous enough to warrant life sentences, then charge the perps with crimes that may bring those life sentences. If a perp is deemed criminally insane, then commit them for as long as is needed to remove the threat from society. Do that up front, with a jury, using laws passed by a legislature that is voted into office, and both justice and democracy are served. Otherwise, you've given the state the power to arbitrarily increase awarded sentences, and threaten defendants (who, lets remember, are still considered innocent at that point) into copping pleas, guilty or not, under that threat. In addition, you've given the state the power the change the 'type' of crime they may apply this system to. Finally, the kind of voter oversight at work in sentencing by statute is either minimized or eliminated entirely with after-the-fact indefinite detention. I'm very uncomfortable giving the state that kind of power, particularly when there are other, less constitutionally questionable ways for the state to remove really bad people from society.

The little torture story is not a violation of the rule of law. It's a violation of the law. Not the same. The U.S. example is a violation of the rule of law, because it is applied retroactively. Again, not the same. Your law is essentially a paraphrased life sentence.

Gave a talk on Camano I and my host was complaining about how ugly the Wildhorse wind farm was. Watcha gonna do? I think those things look fucking cool. They're one of the few things modernity has produced that look like the future I imagined as a pup.

Whisperlite? Do you, like, rock out to Devo on the Walkman while your priming that thing?

Clear and convincing evidence? Convincing to who? Another jury? Do they even find out for how long they will be indefinitely held for? WTF? Due process???? We've been doing that up here for quite a while now. They're called "Dangerous Offenders" and can be held after their original sentence is served, up to and including "indefinitely". The "D.O." status has to be reviewed after 5 or 7(?) years, and then every 2 years after that. But if you're a Paul Bernardo, or a Clifford Olson, or a Robert Pickton, chances are the review panel is going to find that, well, you're still kinda "dangerous", you know? But then, we're a bunch of soft-on-crime, limp-wristed liberal pussies up here, so what else would you expect? If they're so dangerous, why don't you just give them long or even life sentences with a periodic parole review, just in case they turn over a new leaf? You don't fuck the rule of law in the ass that way. I realize a solution like the above is utterly beyond TripleKunt's comprehension, but still.

You can start with the Catholic priests molesting alter boys, you ACLU fucktard moron. To some, they'd be equivalent, I suppose. But then, that same group also eats its own poo.

JESUS, that's like a planaria calling the guy behind the microscope stupid.

So much for the fear of soshalists dumping the bodies of their enemies in mass graves, eh, KuntKuntKunt? I think executing a 20 year old for nailing a 16 year old is a fine idea. Very civilized.

Sex offenders don't make very sympathetic victims of injustice, but, the obvious question that stems from this ruling is: Who's next?

The ACLU just announced that it will attempt to block the Arizona law in federal court. Go team.

On demand at Netflix. Do a search on the word "Feed" and theres a whole lot of bad shit going down.

The only clean part of her are her nipples where you've licked the dirt off.

A "trip lever"? Where the hell you gonna go with a shitter attached to your ass? Wouldn't be more accurate to say that our asses have a shitter attached?

I'm heavily invested in my basic values, but I'm a realist when it comes to politics. If that makes me a sucker, so be it.

Jesus, so do I. I realized just how much on that trip with Josh. It's easy to forget, sometimes. Plus, I haven't done a trip with my brofriend Don since the fall. Too long.

My point and shoot doesn't have an optical viewfinder, and I've found I never need one. Bigger LCD is more important, IMO. For the rain, cut a 2 liter coke bottle in half and stick the camera in it or something, or better yet, check the forecast first!

I can only hope you were shitfaced when you attempted to put the above drivel together. The 'a whole lot more killed' propaganda line (it was never intended to be an actual argument, more of a pep squad cheer) is as ridiculous as it is tired. "More Americans would have been dead had Gore not invaded Iraq". Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Have another shot of Jack. That should keep you warm while your out there doggin all those sheep or whatever the fuck you were trying to say. You seem a bit too old for all the Shiny New Recruit "lets git sum" bluster, but I suppose some folks just can't let go of their "let's roll" swagger. Embarrassing, really. And regarding draconia (?) laws, yeah...it's a lot less trouble for everyone when you don't pass them in the first place. An ounce of prevention and all that. Plus, its just a wee bit naive to assume that the Su-Premes are gonna swoop in and plug the dyke when it all goes wrong. Makes for a great John Gresham screenplay, though. And, of course you're going to minimize the massive damage done to this country by the Bush Administration. "Oh, no worries, the pendulum will take care of it". Of course you would, because you voted for that shit, and white washing all that fuckedupedness makes ya feel better.

You'll always get the shot with a point and shoot, even when belaying or rapping or whatever, and that's the most important criteria in my view. Having said that, the larger SLRs do some cool stuff. Long exposure, bracketing (the camera takes 3 rapid shots, then equalized the exposure of sky, subject, and foreground) are my two favorites. Time lapse is another cool feature (some models require an accessory for this one, some don't). Point and shoots are relatively cheap. You could carry one all the time and tote the bigger camera only on photography oriented trips where you've alotted a bit more time to mess around.

I only took a few shots, so I didn't bother to write a TR. Snow conditions were laughably bad as well as super dangerous. I'm waiting a window to do Dark Peak...that should yield some nice shots.

This means that risky activities like offshore drilling are artificially cheaper than they should be, which means there will be more offshore drilling.

From a political standpoint, retroactively increasing award caps allows politicians to dodge the hard decisions they're paid to make. Rather than regulate industry properly, such a scheme allows them to reduce regulation, which only increases that chance that such a disaster will occur, then, if it does, conveniently shift blame/cost to the offender. The end result is that these disasters happen more often than they should, and the environment takes it in the shorts more often than it should.

I'm going to have to disagree. A retroactive increase in liability caps retroactively increases damage awards for lost lawsuits, and that constitutes a penalty, and that is a violation of a basic constitutional principle designed to insure that people can know what the law is and act accordingly. The fact that the law already exists is irrelevant. That the existing liability limits are too low to repair the damage may suck, but the fair way to correct this is to raise them for next time. Let's say you're a doc. You pay insurance based on certain malpractice liability caps. If those caps go up, you buy more insurance. You don't get the opportunity to do that if those caps can be raised retroactively. In that world, you don't really know how much insurance to get. That's fundamentally unfair to those who want to act responsibly. Our system should protect those who do. Another example: insurance payouts. What if insurance payouts could be lowered retroactively? You've paid your premiums based on the coverage you need, and when its time to make a claim, guess what? You get fucked. Not good. The bottom line is that the government, and that is to say ultimately us voters, fucked up by under regulating this industry through lower liability caps and other means. We wanted that oil on the cheap. We wanted BP's stock to net us a pretty profit, so we turned a blind eye to the possibility of such a disaster. Well, guess what? Now we get to pay for our fuck up by footing more of the cleanup bill. That seems fair to me.

IMO, any time you hear about retroactive anything in the legislature, it's a clear sign that somebody fucked up and the system is attempting to pile another fuck up on top to fix it.

I don't think a retroactive penalty against BP will pass even cursory constitutional muster, nor should it. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" means nothing if legal acts committed in the past can become illegal. In that world, it would be impossible to know what the law is.

An ACLU attorney might. I'm not such an animal.