ok, for all you right-wingers:
since corporations are now legally people, if corporate malfeasance leads to death, how about a corporate death penalty?
Printable View
ok, for all you right-wingers:
since corporations are now legally people, if corporate malfeasance leads to death, how about a corporate death penalty?
Right wingers might be the wrong people to ask so long as they support various major breaches of the Constitution such as undeclared wars and Wall Street bailouts... but the same could be said for many left wingers.
This is an interesting play on words based on a judicial ruling declaring corporations to be legal persons. Corporations don't get social security when they are 65 years old either. On the other hand, corporations do collect welfare. When corporate malfeasance led to banking problems, Congress and the Presidents resuscitated certain very large banks rather than allowing them to die. Given this history, it is unlikely that Congress will legislate possible death sentences for some of its best campaign contributors.
I thought I heard on Thom Hartmann the other day that Michigan is one of the states that has [[or had?) a corporate death penalty. Does anyone know anything about that?
Not sure what you mean [[the guillotine is not being used in the US, nor the electric chair anymore I don't think...). But, abortion is not exactly absent of an er-uh "nasty" side withstanding it being shrouded to be a without consequences "procedure"... The testimonies of those who've worked in and left that industry speak to that...
Look, if the suspect is convicted with overwhelming evidence, don't give them the chance to live off the public teet for 45 years. They made a life changing choice in the matter of minutes [[or probably seconds). That was their choice and they should live with the consequences. The world does not need people who take the gift of life for granted, nor those who simply take lives.
Death row would be a simpler place if the overburdened "system" was protected from red tape wranglers who find ways to tie up capital punishment sentences in court for years, if not decades. That there is the king of red herrings. Our courts should be able to make the decision of capital punishment, and see it carried out in a reasonable amount of time. How long did it take for Saddam Hussein to swing from a rope?
If we want to allow murderers to keep their lives in exchange for victims who are contributing citizens of society, then we are on the right track. Otherwise, it would make to much sense.
I wonder if these same people, God forbid, some creep rapes and strangles their child, would be for keeping them up with three squares, a roof, and laying around playing Xbox all day. All the while working over our court system for early release, which they'll probably get due to prison over-crowding. You people aren't thinking. Fry them. TK Shreve is spot on.
hope you feel the same if, someday, the dna of someone close to you is found at a rape/murder scene, and he/she is identified by witnesses, and he/she gets convicted and executed inspite of being innocent.
If we had a perfect system, if people were actually good witnesses [[and anyone wh thinks they are is a fool), if police and prosecuters were less prone to go for the conviction at any cost, then fine, i'd go along with the DP for certain crimes. FAR too many innocent people have ended up on death row.
I believe as part of Michigan's constitution corporations have a fixed life span
I don't think Michigan has done much concerning corporate death penalties other than this:
In 1884, the people of New York City, citing a wilful pattern of abuse, asked their attorney general to revoke the charter of the Standard Oil Trust of New York [[and they succeeded). The state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of a number of banks that were found to be operating against the public interest. Michigan, Ohio and New York revoked the charters of oil, sugar and whisky trusts. In 1890, the highest court in New York State revoked the charter of the North River Sugar Refining Corporation with these words: "The judgement sought against the defendant is one of corporate death. The state, which created, asks us to destroy, and the penalty invoked represents the extreme rigour of the law. The life of a corporation is, indeed, less than that of the humblest citizen."
Thanks, firstandten.
We need to Take Care of Business before business has finished taking care of us. The tools are there. They've held free reign for far too long. They have done far more damage than they should have ever been allowed to do.
rb- Of course I won't feel the same. You're suggestion that I would is demeaning and, of course, bait as well. Congrats. Another successful trolling on your part.
Perhaps you should review my opening sentence, if it was me you were referring to originally :confused::
The key word is overwhelming. Take for instance that monster Ihab Massalamani [[sp) who abducted Matthew Landry, took him to an abandoned house in Detroit and executed him with the help of that other kid. This all in the wake of him robbing a bank and an attempted car jacking. Who knows what else he did on that two day spree.Quote:
Look, if the suspect is convicted with overwhelming evidence, don't give them the chance to live off the public teet for 45 years.
I'm no juror or judge, but I can realistically say that the evidence is overwhelming from what I have seen in the media. In the courtroom, I'm sure its even moreso.
So letting this little $hi+ stain keep his life is in no ones best interest [[after being found guilty of the crime, which he will). The fact that he gets to keep his life at the expense of a law abiding citizen is what bothers me the most. It's a losing formula, and when applied en masse, is not the right direction for society. Especially if people like this have the opportunity for early release.
And your generalization on witnesses is priceless. Funny how it fits into your jigsaw agenda of random DNA samplings and misguided DA's. Boy you really dreamed up that nightmare scenario, didn't you? Well, that's the opposite extreme of "overwhelming", so I'm gonna stick by my point.
tks - i was responding to stash, not you.
take a look at some of the death penalty cases which WERE overturned and the convicted individual was cleared. In many of those cases there was overwhelming evidence against an innocent person.
Quote: "take a look at some of the death penalty cases which WERE overturned and the convicted individual was cleared."
You're talking about the introduction of DNA identification and re-examination of old cases. Which is used in all cases now. Which convicts more people than it clears undoubtedly in the present. I seriously question there being a large number of innocent people on death row nowadays. Some of the cable channel docudramas make it sound like we need to retry everyone and it's a 50-50 chance they are all innocent. It's ridiculous.
Quote: "the dna of someone close to you is found"
That means they were there or had some involvement in some way. Almost every family member thinks their accused relative is innocent, every accused , innocent or guilty person is a family member.
No Sstashmoo we don't need to retry everyone on death row, but there's enough doubt on some cases that DNA evidence or not our ideas on the death penalty need to be rethought.
Now if you believe that the innocent people on death row being killed constitutes collateral damage in the war on crime then there is no way you can be convinced that life in prison is better. And I'm not talking about life in the general prison population.
As long as a person is alive a mistake can be corrected.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935
So what's your thoughts when the eveidence is "overwhelming"?
Or do you not believe in such a situation?
Either people don't believe in killing another - for any reason,
OR
You don't believe in our system and/or investigative units.
I would like to hear which side of the "say no to capital punishment" you guys are on. Just not sure of how to debate the topic without that tiny bit of info.
"Overwhelming" is too subjective a standard to kill somebody on. Whats overwhelming to you may not be to me. Don't you think that with all the executions mistakes that have been made folks thought that they had "overwhelming" evidence to justifying the act.
People make mistakes I would be in agreement for the death penalty only if you can guarantee that person is absolutely guility and you can not give me that.
You have presented a "either/ or with false premisses
I absolutely would kill a person if my life was in danger from that person
Why would I not believe in our system? I live in Michigan a non-death penalty state
our investigative units?
our investigative units are great for finding the truth not for determining who lives or dies
I don't understand that either/or you presented
What you need to resolve is are you ready to accept collateral damage in regards to the death penalty, because there will be.
I am not
I'm a conservative and I don't believe in the death penalty. Corporal punishment that does not lead to death, yes. But not killing someone because they have done wrong.
Just another "do as I say, not as I do" that doesn't make any sense.