Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
There’s been a slow, creeping, gradual change in direction here and it isn’t good.
1950: Your honor, the defendant just snapped and killed three people.
2010: Your honor, I’m innocent, I just snapped and killed three people.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Just snapped? Sounds like the old temporary insanity deal. It was a desperate attempt to plead insane without actually being insane. I say we avoid treating it like a justice issue, altogether and treat it like a public health issue.
Quarantine the snapper forever or until a total cure is found for sudden snapping.
Hey, we could try an experiment and let the relatives of the victims of the snapper come to visit him to see if sudden snapping is catching. ‘Cause I think it might be.
- Walt | 08/30/2011 @ 21:32I have never understood, for that matter, why it’s apparently illegal to execute the criminally insane.
As I understand the concept, the definition of legally-insane is someone who has become incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or of understanding the consequences of his/her actions. Therefore, it’s apparently not “fair” to make such a person pay the ultimate price.
The part I’m having trouble with, is why that matters. The rest of us knew it was wrong, and the fact that it happened means the perpetrator is dangerous, insane or not, understanding of the act or not. The victim is no less dead regardless of whether the defendant is ruled insane.
I do not understand why society or the state would want to keep such a person alive or why that defendant’s life is worth any more than some other defendant who was unable to mount this defense in court.
- cylarz | 09/02/2011 @ 21:22It is a natural consequence of man passing judgment on man, as opposed to man judging deeds, man judging ideas, man judging strategy. The courts, figuring erroneously they could err on the side of too much secularism and that all the hazard was tied up in erring on the side of religious orthodoxy, made exactly the blunder that religious sects overall (not just Jud-Chris.) try to keep us from making. The argument is that you can’t pass judgment on a person’s badness without taking into account his ability, or lack thereof, to distinguish right from wrong. If he’s insane, he might very well be a swell guy who just didn’t understand it’s wrong to remove a toddler’s forearms with an electric knife using the kitchen sink to catch all the blood.
It’s a valid point, but to reach it you need to lose track of the goal. Justice is not about man passing judgment against man. If it was, civilization itself would be irreconcilably incompatible with J/Chris and many other religions. We’d have to round up all the devoutly religious and kick ’em out, to start a new civilization on a Pacific island somewhere. No, it’s about protecting the innocent.
Does that mean I’m saying you can’t protect everybody’s rights — innocent and guilty — in a purely secular form of government? Aaahhhhh…yup. Logic leads there and so does the evidence.
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2011 @ 08:50