Death Penalty??

Galatian, earlier:
You can't run from the TAAS test, though. All public school students in the state have to take it, and it's a very good index of how we're doing as a state.

I certainly hope so. The test is on all the basic academic skills our children are supposed to have at the appropriate grade level. If you mean that the teachers look at the test that will be given, and teach according to that, you're wrong. Teachers don't see the test at all, not even when it's given. Find a teacher who proctors the test and ask him to explain to you the security. It's very tight and obsessive.

Galatian, earlier:
I think I know what you're trying to say, but no, you can't move to another district to avoid the TAAS. It's statewide. As you may know, the TAAS has been upgraded to the TEKS, which is going to be a lot harder to pass. TAAS was useful when education in Texas was dismal. Now that we've raised it to mediocre, it's time to raise the bar, too.

You can check with the TEC. They keep stats on ineligible players for different sports and districts. Football is still king some places, but it's becoming a constitutional monarchy.

Galatian:
But Ross did institute school reforms that made a difference. No pass, no play. Coaches howled that kids would drop out if they had to pass their classes. What happened was Bubba wanted to play football so bad, he'd even study, if he had to. More kids were passing. And coaches suddenly became concerned about education. I don't care for Ross much, but I have to give him credit on this one.

As you just learned, they can't. They never see the test, until it's opened by the students in their classes. And even then, they aren't supposed to look at the booklets. And they can lose their teaching license for just having a poster in their room that might be useful for the test. Find a teacher and learn about it.

Hardly. I applauded when Gore dissected him in the debate on NAFTA. Ross is pretty goofy in a lot of ways, but every Texan owes him thanks for reforming education.

The US and about forty other countries have given a series of identical math and science tests to students. There are state rankings, although the TIMMS people don't like to emphasize them. Texas has moved from "thank God we're better than Mississippi" to mediocre. You can find it at the site for the Third International Math and Science Study site.

Galatian, earlier:
BTW, Dallas seems to be finally getting its act together. The reforms (again Ross's stuff) made it likely that the state would come in and take over Dallas schools if they didn't.

It's mostly racial bitterness. But the new superintendent has told the board he'll quit and go straight to the state, recommending a takeover, if they play politics with him. I hope so.

I wasn't aware that Ross had anything to do with DISD. What makes you think that he does?

Nope. McCain. Voted for Gore, as the least unacceptable candidate.

I have to admit, I'm grateful to Perot for the reforms. But I never voted for him. He pretty much ruled that out when he opposed NAFTA.

Well, if you'll read my post carefully again, you'll note that I didn't say it's been solved. We're making progress, but there's a lot left to do. But where kids move isn't part of it. BTW, since you seem to live in the Dallas area, you might notice that the reforms have had a very good effect on the Wilmer-Hutchins district. It's been deplorable for a long time, and now the TAAS scores are rising again, under state guidance.

My condolences.

Yes. The TAAS test only samples certain key skills in certain age groups. It doesn't sample all things taught in any school.

Blame it on our Texas Constitution. It recognizes more rights for us than anyone else in the world has. One of those rights guaranteed by the state is a free and appropriate education. Hence, the state has to assure that all students get this. The "Robb'n Hood" plan was an alternative to a state income tax. I live in a district that has to pay much of it's money to poorer districts as well. But that's the law. If we went to an income tax, the same thing would happen. The only out is to abolish the right to a free public education.

Go check it out though. It's not what you've been told it is.

All I can say is I see the distict moving in the right direction for the first time. Maybe the board will fire this new person as soon as he starts stepping on toes. But maybe they're sufficiently scared of state intervention to clean up their act.

We'll see...

 

Justine:

What makes you think that?

Apparently, you just did.

Would have studied harder.

Yep. Thread drift, for sure. But it was an important issue.

 

COOL!

 

That is one of the funniest post I have read in a long time!!

 

Kathy,

Why, thank you!

I think I made a mistake though.

I always shorten everybody's name, and use the 1st 3 letters usually. I didn't realize, but, I think that Galatian is a Guy and not a Gal.

I figured it out when he changed my name to Justine?

When most people on the chat & message boards JUST call me JUST.

I picked this name because when I go on a chat boards like, boards for parents of special needs children, they ask me about my name, and then I answer them, because I am Justified by the blood of Jesus Christ. That usually leads into sharing the Gospel with them.

 

Multi,

That is a very good response and very tactful display of the facts of that situation of OJ Simpson.

As for your suggestion of the "Torture Death Penalty", I think you deserve the "Pulitzer Prize" for that one!

And you are also 100% correct in pointing out that these little ones did nothing to "seduce" a grown pervert to participate in such evil crimes against such innocent victims.

Again, well done!

 

Multimom: Sorry folks I'm stongly in favor of this and I hope Avila fries for what he did.

I agree. Fry him. As the Hack says, crispy critter.

Or is a better alternative for sex offenders giving them a mandatory sex change?

They're all creeps & they're all evil. Too bad some of the greatest offenders go unpunished (i.e. priests).

Fox News has just reported another little girl missing from her kitchen!

There are so many missing kids that aren't even reported in the news, though.

 

Well, I'll come out and say that I am completely against capital punishment. Under no circumstances do I believe it should be used.

I do believe that in most cases it is used as revenge, which is never acceptable for us to exact. No matter tha "proof" for or against rehabilitation, that really isn't the issue. It is used as the justification for capital punishment, but most often isn't the true reason people support it. Most people I've come in contact with believe in capital punishment as a means to "get back at" someone. Several mentions of "so-and-so should fry!" only prove that.

Much of the time, desire for capital punishment is based on rage at crime and fear of becoming a victim, which are perfectly understandable feelings to have. However, it is not acceptable to me that in order to assuage our own anger and fear we must kill another person. Legal murder does not teach that killing is wrong, nor does it teach sanctity for human life.

Capital punishment is vengeance disguised as justice.

 

Stub,

Again, as with others that have voiced an emotional typed display against the DEATH PENALTY, you have not given suffient evidence against it.

A senond falicy with your statement, is that you claim it is an act of vengence. If that were the case, then there might be some valitady to your claims. BUT, the judicial system has no ties to the victims, thus vengence is not the motive.

As for the comment "so and so should fry", that is a comment made from a family and/or friend of the victim, and coming from an unsaved and sometimes a saved person, is a natural response, and can you blame them? The fact still stands, that they do not have anything to do with the verdict.

But, to totally negate God's Word on this subject, for our liberal emotional feelings, is putting us over God's Wisdom. And that my friend, is part of the same thing that Satan told Eve in the Garden, and the reason that Lucifer was cast out of Heaven.

 

Baptist Believer: I think you have me confused with someone else. That was my first contribution to the thread.

I said nothing critical of Bush. I merely pointed out, quite correctly, that Bush was incapable of officially pardoning prisoners, but that he was quite capable of doing it through unofficial channels.

Which is quite true. And that, dear Sir, was my entire contribution to the thread.

So once again, as the following was the entirety of my posting history on this thread at the time of your accusation, what part of the below killed my integrity?

Which part of the above is factually incorrect?

Can Bush officially pardon people? I said he couldn't, which is my understanding of Texas law.

Can Bush petition the Parole Board to pardon a criminal? As best I can tell, he is in no way barred from doing so.

Does the sitting Governer of Texas have the political capital to convince the board of parole to commute a sentence? Historically, yes. Sitting governers in the past have done so. I am unaware of whether Bush ever availed himself to that option.

So, I'm at a loss. I posted two short paragraphs, and you made certain slurs to my integrity. Yet I can see no errors of fact in my statements.

You're going to have to point them out, or apologize for insulting me.

 

Stub, the old liberal argument against capital punishment is in the same realm of arguing that a loving God would not send someone to hell.

And like I alluded to earlier, most often those who are against capital punishment think nothing of suctioning an innocent unborn baby's brains out, tossing the murdered baby into the trash, and calling it "choice."

The difference is:

The unborn baby is innocent and a pure heart.

The child who is brutally and savagely sexually molested, chewed upon, desecrated with inanimate objects and finally slaughtered is innocent and a pure heart.

The perpetrator is not innocent, but evil. Jesus said better for a millstone to be hung around a person's neck than to offend a little one.

It is really hard to keep my cool on this subject to those who would defend such evil and say such evil doesn't deserve destruction.

 

Eagle,

Very well said!

Again, what takes president? God's Word or Man's liberal emotions?

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

 

Well, Just, I guess I don't know what kind of evidence you require. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I don't know what kind of evidence would be satisfactory to you. I can give you evidence, but your satisfaction with it . . . well, that I may not be able to provide.

My interpretation of "shall surely be put to death" is not an instruction to kill. But, I'm not a literalist, either, so perhaps there will be no satisfaction on this issue.

To the other statements:

I actually think I was quite detached in my response. Nary an exclamation point anywhere. I wouldn't call it an "emotional typed response." I was rather rational, I thought. But that's really neither here nor there.

I do believe in our justice system. In fact, I plan to commit myself to the study and practice of law. However, when it comes to humans sentencing other humans to die, I must disagree with your assertion that "the judicial system has no ties to the victims, thus vengence is not the motive." Actually, I misspoke. The judicial system itself is not tied to the victims, but the jurors who choose to approve the death sentence are. We all have bias, even jurors. We do our best to put it aside and decide merely on the merits, and usually do a good job. Well, okay, we sometimes do a good job. But I can't accept that the juries who choose the death penalty (is it supposed to be capitalized, as you did?) do not use it as an instrument of vengeance. It is inherently a vengeful sentence.

But that, perhaps, is the crux of the argument,

I stated I understood the feelings of those who are angry and fearful - it is a natural response, as you said. But should we use those feelings to commit murder? It may be the natural response of a father to kill the one who killed his daughter, but it is not still murder done out of vengeance. Should we stand for such ideas of justice in that case?

Juries are routinely asked to consider the victims' families pain when making their decisions. When families give testimony to their pain and suffering in an attempt to have the death penalty impose - isn't the jury being instructed to respond to those feeling with emotion? Isn't the jury being instructed (at least by the prosection) to funnel the desire for vengeance by victims' family members into a legal act? They are being asked to take the father's desire to kill his child's killer and make it possible -- legally.

Even the request for the death penalty's consideration is, I believe, an act of vengeance.
Thus the justice system is being asked to affirm the family's right for vengeance. That is how the system is connected to the victims.

 

The trial that blows your whole argument out of the water is the O.J. Simpson trial.

We seem to have a lot of "Quakers" on this board lately. Just an observation. I never thought of "Quakers" as liberals, myself. I thought they pretty much adhere to the Scriptures in their beliefs.

So, the next question is, are we being trolled again?

 

Well, you're certainly not being trolled by me. Although I am currently attending Quaker meeting for worship, I am still a Baptist. I felt it necessary to put Quaker in my profile, since one of the rules of engagement around here is not to missrepresent onesself.

And Quakers, like Baptists, do have differences of opinion. There are several "denominations," if you will, of Friends, despite its being one denomination of Christianity. Some groups are more liberal than others.

Back to the point, I think the jurors were connected to the victims and their violent deaths. However, they were more connected with the fame of OJ, and were not even willing to convict.

Actually, there are many discrepancies on that point (victim identification). It seems more likely that people will clamor for the death penalty when there are large numbers of victims, or when the victims are children or other 'happy, innocent people." If a string of prostitutes were murdered, I wonder how strong the case for the death penalty would be, or if we'd even hear about the case at all.

 

Actually, the fact is that OJ was NOT tried by a jury of his peers! There was a change of venue to accommodate the news media since it was a televised trial.

A jury of his peers would have been those of the same socioeconomic class from the elite community in which he lived. The actual jury in the case was primarily made up of his race, however, and were sucker punched when the race card was brought up by his crafty dream team defense.

If you still believe in the jurisprudence system in this country, you are living in la-la land. My Congressman was recently tried, convicted, and sentenced by a jury and booted out the House of Reps because he, too, was NOT tried by a jury of HIS peers. The case was tried in Cleveland when we have a fine Federal Court here in Youngstown. He was set up because he has been so outspoken against the political machine...Rep. Jim Traficant. All of the witnesses against him were convicted or about to be convicted felons. There was no physical evidence. One of the prosecutors was the husband of the sitting judge on the case. Sad to see him go--he was probably the only true patriot in the House of Reps. And we will elect him again, come next election, prison or no prison. Skinny ties and wild hair or not. Sad day for the 17th district in Ohio.

In reference to Quakers. There are several large Quaker communities here in Ohio and Pennsylvania, so I am quite familiar with the Friends and their beliefs. None of them have electricity, let alone computers. They still drive horses and buggies. They communicate very little with the outside world except to sell food and wares at flea markets and occasionally take carpentry jobs for us outsiders.

So, it does make one raise an eyebrow when someone comes on here and claims to be a Quaker.

 

According to our judicial system, a jury of one's peers is a jury of citizens. The specifics are just gravy, used by lawyers to make a jury more or less biased. Legally, it doesn't matter the socioeconomic class, sex, or race or anything else of jury members for them to be considered peers under law.

Interesting. All the Quakers I know have electricity and other such trappings. There was one girl at my school who refused to use a computer, but she was the exception.

Perhaps you mean the Mennonnites or Amish?

My experience with Quakers is limited, I confess, but I've not heard of these groups you're talking about. There are, as you say, many Quakers in both those states. Pennsylvania was named for one, even, and many Quaker organizations are officed in Philly. I went to school in North Carolina, which has a large Quaker population as well, and technology was well used.

Quakers even have websites!

www.quaker.org
www.afsc.org
www.quakerinfo.com

. . . and myriad others. Just do a search, and you'll find plenty of things. As far as I know, there is no Quaker testimony eschewing technology.

But anyway, I don't claim to be Quaker. I attend Quaker meeting, as I've said, while maintaining my membership at a Baptist church in Virginia. I may choose to transfer membership to this meeting in the future, but things will stay as they are until I feel convicted to make a change.

 

LOL!!! Guffaw! Of course, you are quite correct---I was referring to the Amish! Glad to see you are on your toes!

I am familiar with Quaker web sites and their beliefs posted on their sites!

Wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of jury of peers. Would like to see some links about that one.

 

Perfectly understandable. Most people confuse them regularly. All three are peace churches, which accounts for the confusion, as does the testimony of simplicity they all embrace.

The 6th Amendment states, in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law . . . ." There is actually no mention of a jury of one's peers in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment is where it gets tricky, since that is where due process is mentioned in relation to the citizenry. It only refers to how and why laws are enforced, and includes an impartial jury as an indirect part of the "how." "Equal protection under the law" is what began the verbiage of "jury of one's peers" and the later restrictions of what "peer" actually means.

So, in Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), it was determined that a jury that has intentionally excluded members of the defendant's race, it is unlawful, but again, only to the point of intentional exclusion. Further, it was determined that a defendant has not been denied due process if a jury is not made up entirely of one's "peers" (in lay terminology, meaning person of one's race, class, sex, etc). In other words, not all members of a jury have to conform to the defendant's "peer group," as commonly defined, and if, in the juror selection process, jurors are deliberately excluded because of their inclusion in the defendant's "peer group," as commonly defined, the jury is considered invalid. But, it has to be proven that the exclusion was deliberate. Batson v. Kentucky (1986) re-affirmed both of these conclusions of the 1879 case. Although both these cases deal with race, they are the basis for my earlier argument.

Peremptory challenges is where the lawyers' attempt to create a custom jury, as I suggested before, come into play. It's relatively recent, but many lawyers blindly discriminate with their peremptory challenges. True, all peremptory challenges are based on stereotypes, but they must not be made on the basis of race or gender, for doing so makes assumptions about a person's bias based solely on outward appearance (J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994) ).

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Strauder v. West Virginia (1879)
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
US Constitution (scroll down a bit to get the links to each article and amendment)

To get a little back on track (or are we still?), as far as the Samantha Runnion case is concerned, whatever happened under the need for "two eyewitnesses" for death to even be considered, as put forth in the Bible? Or is that out? Just asking . . . .