IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / Re: Defining the "next" constitution.
Post #149,842
by jb4
Picture of jb4
4/2/04 6:05:37 PM
Reply
New Re: Defining the "next" constitution.
Right to a fair trial

No citizen may be denied a trial by a jury of his peers, denied access to legal counsel, nor denied right


That last clause ("nor denight right") is a bit...er..clumsy (read: makes no fscking sense, to me, anyway ;-) ). Care to elucidate?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
Post #149,847
by inthane-chan
Picture of inthane-chan
4/2/04 6:18:02 PM
Reply
New Re: Defining the "next" constitution.
Oops. Was trying to come up with some way of codifying the right for a person to reform themselves instead of viewing a "guilty" verdict as a vindictive punishment.

I have a fundamental problem with the idea of "deterrent" and "punishment" behind the prison system - most of the people who get caught these days and sent to the slammer just come out and reoffend, creating a vicious cycle. Prison should be a place of opportunity as well as punishment - a place where we reach out with every hand we've got and say "Hey, it sucks right now, but if you put a little effort in, we'll pull you up." I'm not above punishment, but you need some carrot to go with the stick.

I just can't find a good way to suggest that.
Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
     Defining the "next" constitution. - (inthane-chan) - (37) - April 2, 2004, 04:07:40 PM EST
         "is not a living, self-aware organism" ... coma? - (drewk) - (11) - April 2, 2004, 03:05:56 PM EST
             If you've got better verbiage, I'm all ears. - (inthane-chan) - (10) - April 2, 2004, 03:11:41 PM EST
                 How about - (jbrabeck) - (6) - April 2, 2004, 03:43:58 PM EST
                     Artificail life? Alien life? -NT - (Arkadiy) - (3) - April 2, 2004, 03:51:15 PM EST
                         Re: Artificail life? Alien life? - (jb4) - (2) - April 2, 2004, 06:06:54 PM EST
                             I think granting them the rights of citizens... - (inthane-chan) - April 2, 2004, 06:12:25 PM EST
                             But when they are made/found - (Arkadiy) - April 3, 2004, 12:43:46 PM EST
                     Re: How about.. don't forget my cats - (xtensive) - (1) - April 2, 2004, 04:42:43 PM EST
                         That's a long limb, alright. - (inthane-chan) - April 2, 2004, 04:56:17 PM EST
                 Current legal standard is "natural person" - (drewk) - (2) - April 2, 2004, 03:59:00 PM EST
                     Thanks, incorporated. -NT - (inthane-chan) - April 2, 2004, 04:09:19 PM EST
                     Needs clarification - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 06:40:20 AM EDT
         I have problems with your use of "truth" - (Arkadiy) - (1) - April 2, 2004, 03:39:23 PM EST
             Freedom of religion. - (inthane-chan) - April 2, 2004, 04:08:41 PM EST
         Re: Defining the "next" constitution. - (JayMehaffey) - (2) - April 2, 2004, 05:53:52 PM EST
             on your post right to assemble and seek redress from the gov - (boxley) - April 2, 2004, 06:15:18 PM EST
             Good food for thought. - (inthane-chan) - April 2, 2004, 06:16:36 PM EST
         Re: Defining the "next" constitution. - (jb4) - (1) - April 2, 2004, 06:05:37 PM EST
             Re: Defining the "next" constitution. - (inthane-chan) - April 2, 2004, 06:18:02 PM EST
         Give it a shot - (boxley) - April 2, 2004, 06:32:55 PM EST
         Another thing to consider as a source - the UDHR. - (Another Scott) - (16) - April 2, 2004, 11:09:17 PM EST
             total disagreement on a few things - (boxley) - (15) - April 2, 2004, 11:27:34 PM EST
                 Re: total disagreement on a few things - (JayMehaffey) - (14) - April 3, 2004, 01:16:37 AM EST
                     that is not a basic function of states - (boxley) - (13) - April 3, 2004, 07:27:15 AM EST
                         The basic function of states . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - April 3, 2004, 10:20:41 AM EST
                         Re: that is not a basic function of states - (JayMehaffey) - (10) - April 3, 2004, 01:54:38 PM EST
                             what the state is better doing? - (boxley) - (1) - April 3, 2004, 08:47:38 PM EST
                                 US doesn't do it very well - (JayMehaffey) - April 4, 2004, 12:20:27 AM EST
                             Actually, it is... - (danreck) - (7) - April 5, 2004, 04:33:12 PM EDT
                                 Confucius said it better - (Ashton) - April 5, 2004, 05:28:23 PM EDT
                                 Not sure what your point is - (JayMehaffey) - (5) - April 5, 2004, 06:01:44 PM EDT
                                     why should government cover health care? -NT - (boxley) - (4) - April 5, 2004, 06:06:00 PM EDT
                                         Why should business 'cover' health care? - (Ashton) - (1) - April 5, 2004, 07:40:43 PM EDT
                                             Lets start a new thread, free medical care for all or not (new thread) - (boxley) - April 5, 2004, 09:44:30 PM EDT
                                         Things to consider - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - April 5, 2004, 09:37:12 PM EDT
                                             Have you visited a VA hospital or IHS clinic lately? -NT - (boxley) - April 5, 2004, 09:45:36 PM EDT
                         Re: that is not a basic function of states - (Ashton) - April 4, 2004, 01:32:10 AM EST

I like when things catch fire and explode, which means I do not have your best interests in mind.
109 ms