Arnie denies parole to convicted killer

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-18 10:23am

Gee. I haven't had a chance to use this today...

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-09-18 10:29am

I think the greater question is why keep expending the resources to keep them in jail if we have no intent of ever letting them recover from their past actions? If we've basically decided that we will never accept recouperation, why not just shoot them?

I'm not arguing either side, I just don't see the point of sticking them in a jail and keeping them there forever regardless of what the criminologists claim. We're either willing to let them contribute in society again or we're investing in nothing. Petty "revenge" by keeping them alive is just expensive.

I don't care about this case or the general argument, I'm just saying that the logical fiscal reasoning says you're either investing in their ability to pay back into society later, or you're wasting your cash.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-09-18 10:31am

Ghedit: Oh, and I'm not arguing the case itself because I don't think the blurb was enough information for me to make a reasonable judgment.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2006-09-18 10:38am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Stofsk wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:Oh I don't know. Maybe because while he is in jail there is an even less chance he can do it again.
Uh... what? He's magically incapable of murdering people inside jail?
Atleast he's magically incapable of murdering people outside of jail when he's magically inside it.

Oh yes... because prisoners aren't people so it doesn't matter if they don't die.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-09-18 10:47am

The Guid wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:
Stofsk wrote: Uh... what? He's magically incapable of murdering people inside jail?
Atleast he's magically incapable of murdering people outside of jail when he's magically inside it.
Oh yes... because prisoners aren't people so it doesn't matter if they don't die.

Thats a revolting thing to say but each to his own.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2006-09-18 11:12am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
"You are a stupid fucker. What is the point of punishment? To make sure they don't do it again, fucknuts. If the parole board is sure he won't do it again, what's your problem, asshat?"

No YOu are the stupid fucker her.
Punishishmnet is just that PUNISHMENT. It is completely unrelated rehabilitation, and public safety. It is punishmnet. We are inflicting something on the guilty that makes them suffer.
That you don't grasp the very concept of punnishment make you a stupid fucker. Why are people fined in traffic tickets? It doesn't make them better drivers like traffic school does, so why fine them? PUNISHMENT!
The very idea of punishment is to attach unpleasant/painful consequences to an action you wish to discourage. You obviously don't like the concept as applied to law, but most of us do. You can't wish it away by pretending you don't understand, thus "Proving" you point that it is unethical because you don't get it.
As to why he isn't already dead like he would be in Texas or Utah, it is the willful obstruction of the execution process by assholes like your self that make the process unworkable. It is unfeasable because people like your self MAKE it unfeasable, so don't offer the arguement that it's unfeasability makes is immoral.

Like it or not PUNISHMENT is why he is in prison as well as public safety. Save you squeemishness taken as a virtue and fuck yourself up you ass. You are more squeemish, not more moral than the rest of us. That you can't make hard choices and do dirty unpleasant work make you inferior, not superior.

I will bet you deny the exsisance of true evil in this world, or lack thew balls to confront it face to face you pussy.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2006-09-18 11:16am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:As to why he isn't already dead like he would be in Texas or Utah, it is the willful obstruction of the execution process by assholes like your self that make the process unworkable. It is unfeasable because people like your self MAKE it unfeasable, so don't offer the arguement that it's unfeasability makes is immoral.

Please provide a guarantee to us all that no innocent person has ever been executed in the U.S, and that no innocent person ever will be executed in the U.S. Oh, you can't? I guess it's still immoral to execute people.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2006-09-18 11:20am

The 100% standard? No room for error? What falacy is that again?
This thead will need to be split if it is going to be hijackied into a Deathb penalty debait.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2006-09-18 11:21am

Note that I said unworkable, not immoral. read more closely next time.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2006-09-18 11:46am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:The 100% standard? No room for error? What falacy is that again?

I do happen to know what fallacy (Note that there are two l's in fallacy, not one) you are referring to, which is the Black and White fallacy. Of course, when you are dealing with an absolute punishment such as execution, I see absolutely nothing wrong with demanding absolute perfection in its application. Or would you rather we execute all the David Milgaards of the world just so that you can feel that you've had your revenge.

This thead will need to be split if it is going to be hijackied into a Deathb penalty debait.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have started hijacking it in the first place.

Note that I said unworkable, not immoral. read more closely next time.

Would you please not outright lie about what you wrote? In amongst the horrible grammar, terrible mispellings, and other general indicators of a lack of education, you left this little gem: "unfeasability makes is immoral. "

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2006-09-18 12:33pm

My thought on lifetime imprisonment (much less without parole) was that it was (supposed?) to provide another stopgap besides appeals that could come before execution -- at least, if the case is thrown out later somehow even after appeals were exhausted, the person will (hopefully) still be physically alive by then.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2006-09-18 12:45pm

Parial quotes, taken out of context.
The FULL quote is "so don't offer the arguement that it's unfeasability makes is immoral." Clearly I am not making this arguement, I am asking it not to be make. If you have seperate arguement, make it.
Who exactly is lying here? As to my spelling errors, I cop to them. I run a little hot at times, and am having vision problem. I am upping the font sizes to compensate.

If spelling errors are the best you can come up with, along with quoting me out of context in a deliberatly deceptive way, I leave this to the readers to decide. Please address my arguments, as stated, not spelling The concept, not the execution of verbage. Please do not lie while accusing me of lying either.

Bottom line? Rot in jail, for there is no hell. I would send him and his ilk to oblivion if but I could. Pick away at the nits boyo.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2006-09-18 05:19pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Parial quotes, taken out of context.
The FULL quote is "so don't offer the arguement that it's unfeasability makes is immoral." Clearly I am not making this arguement, I am asking it not to be make. If you have seperate arguement, make it.

I see. You are simply dismissing all such arguments out of hand because they destroy your position.

Who exactly is lying here?

I admit, I was confused by the horrible mess that you posted, since it's virtually impossible to extract what you actually meant to post.

Please address my arguments, as stated, not spelling

Perhaps you'd notice, if you were capable of basic reading comprehension, that I did address your arguments. I'll assume that you're conceding since you offered no counterargument whatsoever.

Or perhaps you can actually address the point. I'll post it again so that you have another chance to defend your position.

"I do happen to know what fallacy (Note that there are two l's in fallacy, not one) you are referring to, which is the Black and White fallacy. Of course, when you are dealing with an absolute punishment such as execution, I see absolutely nothing wrong with demanding absolute perfection in its application. Or would you rather we execute all the David Milgaards of the world just so that you can feel that you've had your revenge."

The concept, not the execution of verbage. Please do not lie while accusing me of lying either.

If you don't care enough to spellcheck and grammar check your posts, then I can hardly be expected to bother reading them carefully.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-18 05:26pm

SpacedTeddyBear wrote:
I do not see why he shouldnt be released on parole.
1980 was 26 years ago, that is long time, sufficient time indeed for him to change.
So when the parole board is sufficently sure that he is no danger why shouldnt he be released ?
Because change doesn't excuse nor does it dampen the fact that he purposely murdered 2 people in cold blood.

actually ex-girlfriend and guy he thought she was boinking, is by definition not a "Cold Blood" crime but a "hot blood" crime. he wasn't motivated by profit, he was motivated by jelousy and the law tends to go easier on those types.

mostly because unlike your gang member/armed robber who kills for finincial motive or to cover up a crime. the psycho ex-boyfriend is seen as being less likely to kill again. as the original crime is not a result of concious fore thought but emotional reaction.

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2006-09-18 05:42pm

As a Californian, I can attest to the complaints about Arnie (or, lack thereof). Personally, I don't think his done a great job, and he was shot down on every initiative he put on the ballot last year, but I will say that he owned up to his mistakes, and has (or so he says) tried to right his wrongs.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-09-18 05:58pm

Pick wrote:I think the greater question is why keep expending the resources to keep them in jail if we have no intent of ever letting them recover from their past actions? If we've basically decided that we will never accept recouperation, why not just shoot them?

I'm not arguing either side, I just don't see the point of sticking them in a jail and keeping them there forever regardless of what the criminologists claim. We're either willing to let them contribute in society again or we're investing in nothing. Petty "revenge" by keeping them alive is just expensive.

I don't care about this case or the general argument, I'm just saying that the logical fiscal reasoning says you're either investing in their ability to pay back into society later, or you're wasting your cash.

That would call into question the whole concept of a prison term. Why sentence a man/woman to X amount of years at all durring sentencing? If the parol boards are to take on more weight as an expert panel of when these people are 'rehabilitated', then when some one is sentences after trial, should they be therefore sentenced until a parole board deems them ready?

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-18 06:17pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:You are a stupid fucker. What is the point of punishment? To make sure they don't do it again, fucknuts. If the parole board is sure he won't do it again, what's your problem, asshat?
No YOu are the stupid fucker her.
Punishishmnet is just that PUNISHMENT. It is completely unrelated rehabilitation, and public safety. It is punishmnet. We are inflicting something on the guilty that makes them suffer.

No, we're not, retard. We are inflicting something on the guilty that makes them NOT DO IT AGAIN, you stupid retarded cocksucking motherfucker.

That you don't grasp the very concept of punnishment make you a stupid fucker. Why are people fined in traffic tickets? It doesn't make them better drivers like traffic school does, so why fine them? PUNISHMENT!

You're the one who doesn't grasp the concept of punishment. We give tickets to speeders so they DON'T DO IT AGAIN, fucking moronic asshat.

The very idea of punishment is to attach unpleasant/painful consequences to an action you wish to discourage. You obviously don't like the concept as applied to law, but most of us do. You can't wish it away by pretending you don't understand, thus "Proving" you point that it is unethical because you don't get it.

EXACTLY! That's exactly it. My god, you have one brief shining moment of clarity, and then back to your idiotic ramblings. You hit the nail on the head with that statement, the point of punishment is to attach unpleasant/painful consequences to an action you wish to discourage, so they DON'T DO IT AGAIN. Then you release them when you are sure they won't do it again, which the parole board was sure of. This allows them to be functioning members of socity again, repaying their debt incurred during their incarceration, pigfucker.

As to why he isn't already dead like he would be in Texas or Utah, it is the willful obstruction of the execution process by assholes like your self that make the process unworkable. It is unfeasable because people like your self MAKE it unfeasable, so don't offer the arguement that it's unfeasability makes is immoral.

Unfeasible and immoral are two very different concepts, retard. Execution is unfeasible because it's a monetary black hole. If we imprision someone for 20 years, we can rehabilitate them, and make them functioning members of society, and they can pay taxes for 40 years, and the government recupes it's losses. If we execute however, we gain nothing.

It's immoral because it's always immoral to kill someone. (which is why he's in there in the first place)

snip Ad hominem

I can always tell when I'm winning when the other person resorts to personal attacks without any substance.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-18 06:18pm

Knife wrote:That would call into question the whole concept of a prison term. Why sentence a man/woman to X amount of years at all durring sentencing? If the parol boards are to take on more weight as an expert panel of when these people are 'rehabilitated', then when some one is sentences after trial, should they be therefore sentenced until a parole board deems them ready?

I would support that. Don't let them out until they're rehabilitated, not before, and not after.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-18 06:46pm

no

like prostitution in the old west we know that people will speed and vitually nothing will stop this behaviour. So we give people tickets to fund the governement. it's not to discourage this behaviour, in fact some places will go out of their way to make it next to impossible for someone to react in a timly manner to a change in the local speed laws. In order to get finaincial reward for the community.

Secondarily what we see here is a case of a hot blooded "crime of passion" type murderer, whom the parole boards felt was no threat to the community being kept inside to expidite a political fiction, and for the gain of the govenor.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-18 06:56pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Like prostitution in the old west we know that people will speed and vitually nothing will stop this behaviour. So we give people tickets to fund the governement. it's not to discourage this behaviour, in fact some places will go out of their way to make it next to impossible for someone to react in a timly manner to a change in the local speed laws. In order to get finaincial reward for the community.

Bullshit. That's part of it, of course, but no one would obey speed limits if there wasn't some sort of penalty for it.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2006-09-18 07:24pm

Knife wrote: That would call into question the whole concept of a prison term. Why sentence a man/woman to X amount of years at all durring sentencing? If the parol boards are to take on more weight as an expert panel of when these people are 'rehabilitated', then when some one is sentences after trial, should they be therefore sentenced until a parole board deems them ready?

Imprisonment has both a punishment and rehabilitation angle to it. Depending on the current political environment, one can predominate over the other. From everything I've read about the US system, it is very much punishment with minimal rehabilitation.

My own thoughts are that the societal cost needs to be weighed. It costs a very large amount of money to imprison someone plus it loses any opportunity that person has to become productive to society. The other side is that prisoner X might be a dangerous fucker who is more than willing to reoffend plus the need to signal to society that this behaviour is not acceptable.

Simply killing pardons (or effectively killing them by making them rarer than a blue moon except for certain political friends) is telling your long-term prisoners not to bother even trying to grow. Not necessarily how you want to be handling a large and growing prison population.

This lack of pardoning also applies to lesser crimes - so for owning a few grammes of marijuana, you have essentially lost many of your civil rights forever (many states bar felons from voting, and it makes getting a job extremely difficult). Yet isn't it logical that after a number of years of living a law abiding life, minor crimes should be washed away (pardoned)? Why should a 65 year-old still be punished (losing the vote, etc...) for stealing a loaf of bread when they were 18 and otherwise lead a normal life? What good does this do society?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-18 07:27pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:The very idea of punishment is to attach unpleasant/painful consequences to an action you wish to discourage.

That sounds more like deterrent.

Cincinnatus · Post by **Cincinnatus** » 2006-09-18 09:18pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:no

like prostitution in the old west we know that people will speed and vitually nothing will stop this behaviour. So we give people tickets to fund the governement. it's not to discourage this behaviour, in fact some places will go out of their way to make it next to impossible for someone to react in a timly manner to a change in the local speed laws. In order to get finaincial reward for the community.

Secondarily what we see here is a case of a hot blooded "crime of passion" type murderer, whom the parole boards felt was no threat to the community being kept inside to expidite a political fiction, and for the gain of the govenor.

It wasn't a crime of passion. Daniel Wehner threatened to kill the victim months before the actual crime, wrote “bang, bang you’re dead” on the wall of her apartment, followed her to Davis and killed her there. It was definitely premeditated. Also, what makes you think the motive was jealousy? He said the other victim just got in the way and was innocent, if you look at the second article on the previous page.

It would be helpful if we knew what Wehner’s original sentence was, but I haven’t seen it in any articles I’ve seen on this story.

Also, why is everyone assuming this is political posturing by Arnold? Did his camp release this story? It doesn't seem out of character for him to overturn the parole board, the article I posted said he's done so the majority of the time when it comes to violent crime.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-18 09:32pm

I'm actually in favour of keeping this little shit in prison indefinitely, for the simple reason that he lost the right to have the benefit of the doubt when he committed murder. And the fact that the parole board thinks he's OK doesn't mean shit to me. Will the members of the parole board offer to personally make restitution to the families of the victims if this ass-wipe kills again? Do they even show up for the funerals? Do they even bother to apologize? Do they tender their resignations immediately? No, they'll walk away and wash their hands of all responsibility for their decisions. Garbagemen take their social responsibility more seriously than parole board members do.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-18 09:41pm

Parole stopped being popular around here when the Pennsylvania parole board let a 2-time murderer and obvious psychopath loose. 11 weeks later, he killed a cop in Franklin Township, NJ. I don't see any reason at all to let cold-blooded killers loose. We need more rehab in the system, but a guy who plans a murder for months is beyond rehab--and beyond deserving it.