Arnie denies parole to convicted killer

[Darth Servo]

That's because it's a retarded question. By that logic, we should lock up all criminals. What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentance, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse? Do you want that on your conscience?

Not even remotely comparable since the purse or at least its monetary value can be returned. The same cannot be said for a murder victim.

What about a drunk driver? Obviously we should throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life. What happens if you only give him community service, and then after he worked all day at a park, he goes to a nearby bar and gets drunk? What should happen if he drives home from the bar, and hits one of the little kids that was playing at the park? How do you make up for that?

You can't which is why rational people constantly argue that penalties for drunk driving should be stricter. Some HAVE argued that drunk drivers should be treated the same as if they deliberately committed the crime in question.

But last time I checked, murder was about the only crime we put people away for life.

Kamakazie Sith is an idiot, and I ignored his moronic question. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

Its a moronic question because you try and compare murder with stealing?

[Civil War Man]

What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentance, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse? Do you want that on your conscience?

1. It is much easier to recompense the losses of a theft victim than a murder victim, so the crimes are not equal. Frankly your second analogy is more sound.

2. If the kid makes a habit of robbing old ladies, I have absolutely no problem locking him up.

What about a drunk driver? Obviously we should throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life. What happens if you only give him community service, and then after he worked all day at a park, he goes to a nearby bar and gets drunk? What should happen if he drives home from the bar, and hits one of the little kids that was playing at the park? How do you make up for that?

If he's too stupid to realize that what he's doing might get someone killed, then he deserved to be locked up. And if he is too stupid to learn it after he's already killed someone, then it should be for the rest of his life. I happen to know someone who has killed someone while driving drunk, and after he served his sentence and was released from prison, he wouldn't touch a drop of alcohol. He was punished, and in the end he reformed himself so he wouldn't do it again. If the person in your example does the same, good for him. If not, he's never going to get another chance.

By the way, just so you don't strawman me again, I am not in favor of giving life imprisonment to every convict. All crimes are not equal in severity, and so the same should apply for punishments. However, as DW put it, there are certain criminals who by the nature of their crimes do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. And if you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

[Stofsk]

Ideally there would be accountability on their parts as well. Believe me, I'm all in favour of the authorities being held accountable for fuck ups they make.

But there aren't. Thats the whole complaint.

The solution is to introduce accountability, not dismiss what a parole board has to say or what it recommends - or the very notion of parole.

[Dominus Atheos]

That's because it's a retarded question. By that logic, we should lock up all criminals. What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentence, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse? Do you want that on your conscience?

Not even remotely comparable since the purse or at least its monetary value can be returned. The same cannot be said for a murder victim.

Well, if you are going to quibble over semantics, then say the kid goes and tries to steal another purse, but the old lady fight back, and he kills her. How do you make up for that? Or if that's not "comparable" enough for your high standards(:roll:), what if he wants revenge against the old lady who presumably testified against him, and goes and kills her.

What about a drunk driver? Obviously we should throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life. What happens if you only give him community service, and then after he worked all day at a park, he goes to a nearby bar and gets drunk? What should happen if he drives home from the bar, and hits one of the little kids that was playing at the park? How do you make up for that?

You can't which is why rational people constantly argue that penalties for drunk driving should be stricter. Some HAVE argued that drunk drivers should be treated the same as if they deliberately committed the crime in question.[/quote]

Okay, but in my example the guy was just arrested for DUI, and then he gets released and runs over some little kid. Is that the judges fault? Of course not, it's the guy's fault, and nothing the judge could have done, short of sentencing him to life for a DUI, could have prevented it. The judge bears no responsibility.

But last time I checked, murder was about the only crime we put people away for life.

And by Kamakazie Sith's logic, that means WE bear responsibility for all crimes committed by anyone with a pre-existing criminal record.

Kamakazie Sith is an idiot, and I ignored his moronic question. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

Its a moronic question because you try and compare murder with stealing?

You know what else always tells me I'm winning? When the other person resorts to quibbling over semantics as their only argument.

[Darth Servo]

Well, if you are going to quibble over semantics,

Pointing out that your example was completely different is not semantics. Go consult your nearest dictionary dumbass.

then say the kid goes and tries to steal another purse, but the old lady fight back, and he kills her. How do you make up for that? Or if that's not "comparable" enough for your high standards(:roll:), what if he wants revenge against the old lady who presumably testified against him, and goes and kills her.

In neither case does the theif have a prior history of homicide so once again, your example falls apart.

Okay, but in my example the guy was just arrested for DUI, and then he gets released and runs over some little kid. Is that the judges fault? Of course not, it's the guy's fault, and nothing the judge could have done, short of sentencing him to life for a DUI, could have prevented it. The judge bears no responsibility.

No one is saying its the judges FAULT. But your claim that therefore the judge bears NO responsibility for letting a known lethal hazzard back on the street is pure stupidity and a black and white fallacy.

And by Kamakazie Sith's logic, that means WE bear responsibility for all crimes committed by anyone with a pre-existing criminal record.

Wrong. Thats not his logic. That is your slippery slope distortion of his logic.

Kamakazie Sith is an idiot, and I ignored his moronic question. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

Its a moronic question because you try and compare murder with stealing?

You know what else always tells me I'm winning? When the other person resorts to quibbling over semantics as their only argument.

Since you clearly don't even know what the word 'semantics' means, I'd stfu if I were you. Or do you plan on further developing your obvious case of black knight syndrome?

[Dominus Atheos]

What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentance, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse? Do you want that on your conscience?

1. It is much easier to recompense the losses of a theft victim than a murder victim, so the crimes are not equal. Frankly your second analogy is more sound.

See my reply to servo.

2. If the kid makes a habit of robbing old ladies, I have absolutely no problem locking him up.

Nor do I, but I think he deserves at least one more chance after his sentance.

What about a drunk driver? Obviously we should throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life. What happens if you only give him community service, and then after he worked all day at a park, he goes to a nearby bar and gets drunk? What should happen if he drives home from the bar, and hits one of the little kids that was playing at the park? How do you make up for that?

If he's too stupid to realize that what he's doing might get someone killed, then he deserved to be locked up. And if he is too stupid to learn it after he's already killed someone, then it should be for the rest of his life. I happen to know someone who has killed someone while driving drunk, and after he served his sentence and was released from prison, he wouldn't touch a drop of alcohol. He was punished, and in the end he reformed himself so he wouldn't do it again. If the person in your example does the same, good for him. If not, he's never going to get another chance.

That seems fair, but you were still willing to give him at least one more chance.

By the way, just so you don't strawman me again, I am not in favor of giving life imprisonment to every convict. All crimes are not equal in severity, and so the same should apply for punishments. However, as DW put it, there are certain criminals who by the nature of their crimes do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. And if you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

It wasn't a strawman, it was the logical conclusion to the idea that if you commit one crime, you might commit more crimes, and so shouldn't be let out of prison.

And who said I agreed with Darth Wong? I'm just not stupid enough to disagree with him.

[Civil War Man]

Well, if you are going to quibble over semantics, then say the kid goes and tries to steal another purse, but the old lady fight back, and he kills her. How do you make up for that? Or if that's not "comparable" enough for your high standards(:roll:), what if he wants revenge against the old lady who presumably testified against him, and goes and kills her.

It's not just semantics. If he mugs her, spends a little time in jail, and then goes on to live a normal life, the old lady's loss gets recovered and nothing else happens. When he becomes a repeat offender, he demonstrates that he is resistant to attempts at reform, meriting a harsher punishment (up to and including permanent removal from society). If he kills her, he has committed a more serious offense on top of that, meriting a harsher punishment (up to and including permanent removal from society).

Okay, but in my example the guy was just arrested for DUI, and then he gets released and runs over some little kid. Is that the judges fault? Of course not, it's the guy's fault, and nothing the judge could have done, short of sentencing him to life for a DUI, could have prevented it. The judge bears no responsibility.

Yes, and since the man killed no one in his DUI, the judge gave him a less severe punishment in the hopes that this would wake him up to the fact that what he was doing was dangerous. And, since within hours of release he is committing the same crime he was originally arrested for (and even worse, since now he's up for criminal negligence and vehicular manslaughter), it is quite obvious that he did not learn this lesson, which means he earns a more severe punishment.

And by Kamakazie Sith's logic, that means WE bear responsibility for all crimes committed by anyone with a pre-existing criminal record.

You know what? We do bear that responsibility. One that can be better covered by accountability for lax parole board members and much harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Some will slip through the cracks, but it will serve better than parole board members being able to wash their hands of any consequences when they release murderers back into the public.

[Civil War Man]

You posted while I was writing my previous one, hence the double post.

That seems fair, but you were still willing to give him at least one more chance.

Depending on the severity of the crime, I have no problem giving the person who committed it a chance to reform. If they choose not to reform themselves, however, my patience and willingness to be merciful are greatly reduced. And, at least for me, there are certain levels of crime where I do not think the person committing it deserves another chance (namely people who commit premeditated murders, especially if they do it multiple times before being caught).

[Dominus Atheos]

Well, if you are going to quibble over semantics,

Pointing out that your example was completely different is not semantics. Go consult your nearest dictionary dumbass.

Semantics is the study of meaning. The original meaning was that if we release a known criminal, we bear responsibility for his future actions. My example fit that meaning quite nicely, but you didn't think so.

then say the kid goes and tries to steal another purse, but the old lady fight back, and he kills her. How do you make up for that? Or if that's not "comparable" enough for your high standards(:roll:), what if he wants revenge against the old lady who presumably testified against him, and goes and kills her.

In neither case does the theif have a prior history of homicide so once again, your example falls apart.

I just want to do a quick check. I'm saying that if a parole board releases someone, and he goes on to commit a crime, the parole board bears little or no responsibility. They release hundred of convicts each year, and most of them go on to lead normal lifes.

What the hell are you debating?

Okay, but in my example the guy was just arrested for DUI, and then he gets released and runs over some little kid. Is that the judges fault? Of course not, it's the guy's fault, and nothing the judge could have done, short of sentencing him to life for a DUI, could have prevented it. The judge bears no responsibility.

No one is saying its the judges FAULT. But your claim that therefore the judge bears NO responsibility for letting a known lethal hazzard back on the street is pure stupidity and a black and white fallacy.

Alright, little or no responsibility. Kamakazie Sith said:

What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Which clearly places the blame on whoever released him, and implies he should NEVER be released. I'm saying that's bullshit. I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say.

And by Kamakazie Sith's logic, that means WE bear responsibility for all crimes committed by anyone with a pre-existing criminal record.

Wrong. Thats not his logic. That is your slippery slope distortion of his logic.

It is not a slippery slope. It was the logical conclusion to the idea that if you commit one crime, you might commit more crimes, and so shouldn't be let out of prison.

You know what else always tells me I'm winning? When the other person resorts to quibbling over semantics as their only argument.

Since you clearly don't even know what the word 'semantics' means, I'd stfu if I were you. Or do you plan on further developing your obvious case of black knight syndrome?

[Civil War Man]

I just want to do a quick check. I'm saying that if a parole board releases someone, and he goes on to commit a crime, the parole board bears little or no responsibility. They release hundred of convicts each year, and most of them go on to lead normal lifes.

The way I've been saying it, and probably he's been saying it, is that if they release hundreds of convicts each year and most of them lead normal lifes, that's great. But when there are repeat offenses, there should be consequences for the parole boards that heard those cases and decided it would be a good idea to let the con out early.

Alright, little or no responsibility. Kamakazie Sith said:

What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Which clearly places the blame on whoever released him, and implies he should NEVER be released. I'm saying that's bullshit. I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say.

The implication is something you added. If there is confusion, you should try to clear it up before putting words in people's mouths.

[Dominus Atheos]

snip first post

There was nothing I disagreed with in that whole reply. We seem to have reached a consensus on that tangent.

However, I still think that everyone deserves at least a second chance, even, after they've had 26 years to reform, and after managing to convince a group of cops, judges, and criminologists they have reformed.

What do you think?

[The Yosemite Bear]

also the question of weather or not someone with a psychosadistic disorder can be redeemed is interesting. So far we have Fugate and Bell still walking with sealed records and new idenities allegedly living very normal lives as care givers and in bell's case a mother as well. Recall that these are women who have committed or participated in vicious spree or serial murders when they were only teenagers/pre-teens. However the majority of the evidence does not support such findings.

not to mention when paroled at age 70 something half of "Leopold and Loeb" went on to live ten uneventful years before dying of TB.

[Dominus Atheos]

I just want to do a quick check. I'm saying that if a parole board releases someone, and he goes on to commit a crime, the parole board bears little or no responsibility. They release hundred of convicts each year, and most of them go on to lead normal lifes.

The way I've been saying it, and probably he's been saying it, is that if they release hundreds of convicts each year and most of them lead normal lifes, that's great. But when there are repeat offenses, there should be consequences for the parole boards that heard those cases and decided it would be a good idea to let the con out early.

...

Okay, fair enough. But that is only for repeat offenders.

Alright, little or no responsibility. Kamakazie Sith said:

What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Which clearly places the blame on whoever released him, and implies he should NEVER be released. I'm saying that's bullshit. I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say.

The implication is something you added. If there is confusion, you should try to clear it up before putting words in people's mouths.

Which is what I'm trying to do right now.

[dragon]

So...he's actually done something right?
That's rather surprising...

Overall I've heard he's actually a surprisingly competant governor, actually.

Oh yeah?? Well, he still made Terminator 3. For that he must pay. Oh don't think he won't pay!

Now, now its not like he wrote the stupid movie he just played the part. Or at least I think he just played the part.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Judges, lawyers, and cops are expected to be infallible. What if the cops fucked up in investigating this crime, the lawyer was incompetent, and the judge was an ass? He could be completely innocent.

Then they're sued for wrongful prosecution, and because of this they are held accountable for their actions.

That's because it's a retarded question. By that logic, we should lock up all criminals. What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentance, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse? Do you want that on your conscience? What about a drunk driver? Obviously we should throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life. What happens if you only give him community service, and then after he worked all day at a park, he goes to a nearby bar and gets drunk? What should happen if he drives home from the bar, and hits one of the little kids that was playing at the park? How do you make up for that?

Did you just try to compare murder with stealing? How fucking stupid are you? Last time I checked once someone is dead they don't get to come back, but money can be found, or payed back to society through community service.

We're not talking about DUI's here. Don't try to change the subject because of your weak position.

Kamakazie Sith is an idiot, and I ignored his moronic question. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

Oh is that why you completely avoided the question yet again? If I'm an idiot you should be able to directly attack my position without ignoring it, trying to change the subject, and making a completely invalid comparison.

Again, how are you going to make up for the loss of life if this person who was willing to kill for a specific reason gets put into that position again? What price do you put on someone's life? Will it be of equal value to the victims loved ones?

[Darth Wong]

That's because it's a retarded question. By that logic, we should lock up all criminals. What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentance, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse?

Don't be a retard; the moral requirement to minimize the public risk does not mean reducing it to zero. Or do you have no concept of risk management at all?

Parole boards have an ethical responsibility to society. I know the concept of social responsibility may be anathema in a society where people tend to obsess over their own personal rights to the exclusion of all else (and even worse, tout the term "personal responsibility" to argue that you are not responsible for anyone but yourself), but it is there nonetheless.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is not a slippery slope. It was the logical conclusion to the idea that if you commit one crime, you might commit more crimes, and so shouldn't be let out of prison.

That possibility does exist, and I can say that because it happens. My position is that it is irresponsible to society to allow someone out who went out and planned to kill someone, and ended up killing one other person to accomplish their objective.

Thus, any rebutal you have better be one the same fucking level. Robbing a national bank is not on the same level UNLESS they were willing to KILL. Do you understand?

[Darth Wong]

It is not a slippery slope. It was the logical conclusion to the idea that if you commit one crime, you might commit more crimes, and so shouldn't be let out of prison.

That possibility does exist, and I can say that because it happens. My position is that it is irresponsible to society to allow someone out who went out and planned to kill someone, and ended up killing one other person to accomplish their objective.

Thus, any rebutal you have better be one the same fucking level. Robbing a national bank is not on the same level UNLESS they were willing to KILL. Do you understand?

However, he's technically correct that it's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's actually a black/white fallacy which is being falsely attributed to you, hence also making it a strawman fallacy.

[Darth Servo]

Semantics is the study of meaning. The original meaning was that if we release a known criminal, we bear responsibility for his future actions. My example fit that meaning quite nicely, but you didn't think so.

Because you're comparing apples and oranges; a minor reversable crime to a serious irreversible one. That only fits an argument about "meaning" in the twilight zone.

I just want to do a quick check. I'm saying that if a parole board releases someone, and he goes on to commit a crime, the parole board bears little or no responsibility. They release hundred of convicts each year, and most of them go on to lead normal lifes.

What are the exact statistics for repeat vs non-repeat offenders? Your personal say-so doesn't count.

What the hell are you debating?

That a convicted murder is such a LARGE risk to society that parole boards should take EXTRA responsibility when dealing with them. YOU on the other hand seem to think all crimes are equally comparable. That saying we should take much greater precautions to make sure a convicted murder doesn't kill again seem to translate in your twisted head into "we shouldn't let ANY criminal have a second chance"

Alright, little or no responsibility.

Why no responsibility? The parole board CHOSE to release a known lethal hazzard back into society. Anyone ELSE would be cited with criminal negligence. Why do parole boards get an exemption?

Kamakazie Sith said:

What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Which clearly places the blame on whoever released him, and implies he should NEVER be released. I'm saying that's bullshit.

No, your argument is bullshit and you're putting words in his mouth. We lock up murders for life already. No one is saying this should be applied to every other crime so just drop that pile of fertilizer.

I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say.

Learn to read then moron.

It is not a slippery slope. It was the logical conclusion to the idea that if you commit one crime, you might commit more crimes, and so shouldn't be let out of prison.

Nice Darkstar style denial of the fallacy and simply repeating it. We are talking about MURDER, not every illegal activity under the sun. And to say that harsh penalty against murder leads to life sentences for every criminal offense is a slippery slope fallacy no matter how many times you deny it.

You know what else always tells me I'm winning? When the other person resorts to quibbling over semantics as their only argument.

Since you clearly don't even know what the word 'semantics' means, I'd stfu if I were you. Or do you plan on further developing your obvious case of black knight syndrome?

Your psychological projection is duly noted.

[paige.haynes]

Robin was my aunt. her sister who was only 14 at the time is my mom. today there was another board meeting reguarding his release. he was denied parole for the 5th time for 3 years today. thanks to everyone who is in support of my family. to those who stand by danny, please dont think he is ready for society. he could be your neighbor. or your sisters, or your daughters. he is a murderer. not only did he kill my aunt by he executed her. he shot her 5 times at close range over and over again. NO ONE in his family supports him. they want nothing to do with him out of fear. My family has recieved phone calls from anoumous women who would fear for their life if he was released. Th truth is, the only people who can forgive him are dead. but its not even about forgiveness. we have accepted the fact that robin and john have died. its about keeping society safe. and this man is a threat to all. im only 15, but i have been strongly influenced by this man, for good or better its hard to tell. Please continue to support my family and pray for us, as well as Daniel Wehner. he seems to be doing very well in prision, so let him continue to grow there.

god bless you all.

-paige

[ray245]

Couldn't you just start a new thread for this?

[Edi]

Yup. Thread locked for necromancy.